The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1923-12-15
DIVORCE COURT
REFORM IS
SOUGHT
Arlington County Committee
Probing Scandal, Asks
Drastic Rules.
CONTINUED from First Page.l

personally in court to give testi.
mony by word Of mouth. This
''word-of-mouth" testimony can be
more easily followed up, and If
found to be false, perjury and con-
tempt proceedings will he entered
against witnesses falsely swearing.
Scored by Governor.
Governor Trinkle, Of Virginia,
two days ago. in a letter to Judge
Samuel Brent asserted that the mat
ter Of Virginia divorces had be-
come q disgrace to that State.
This must be stopped, said
Governor Trinkle, land / shall
pledge the support Of the attorney
generals office to wipe out forever
this evil"
Lawyers are still making a prac-
tice, It became known yesterday, OF
securing divorces for clients on per-
nants entered into between boarding
house keepers, who sell receipts
for a years room rent, that make
the court procedure look legal.
The lori tenus" Of the recommen-
dations OF the Arlington county
committee covers the "secret cove
nants entered into between board
inghouse keepers, who sell receipts
for = years room rent" It has
been the rottenest spot In the
matrimonial apples of discord filed
In Arlington and Fairfax counties
and In the city Of Alexandria.
The report Of Judge Thomas,
Judge Cloth and State Senator-elect
Frank @. Ball tends to show how
carefully and faithfully these mem
- AHaA A Ill I. n
and delved into the reeking mass
Of divorce mill, records of that
county-the smallest county in any
State Of the Union, the county clos
est to the Capital Of the United
States. The report says:
Text Of Report.
"Your committee finds that 17S
cases for divorce were filed during
the year 1923; and that Of these
cases, fifty-one were filed by MEM
bers OF the bar Of this county hay.
ing offices in the county.
I'm a great many instances, both
parties to the suit and the wit.
nessee introduced are all unknown
to any Of the members Of this COM
mittee; and we have no means OF
ascertaining whether the facts tes-
titled to are true Or not. In each
case one Of the parties to the suit
has testified that he or she has
established q residence for at least
one year prior to the filing Of the
suit In this county and has intro
duced at least one witness to cor
roborate this statement.
with the exception OF q few
cases above enumerated, these wit
nesses as to residence have alsO
testified that they are themselves
residents Of Arlington county, Va.
It would be an endless task to sum-
mon witnesses in each individual
case and endeavor to establish
whether the residence testified to
was actually acquired. This is e.
pecially true in cases where the evil
derce has already been submitted
and the court has entered q decree
finding as g matter Of fact that the
residence had been established by
competent testimony.
Remedy IL Given.
We believe the recommendations
set forth, il followed, will result in
arriving at q true status regarding
the residence of the parties. And
unless this is done at the time Of
hearing, it seems hopeless to re-
view the cases and arrive at the
truth. In other words some meth.
Cd must be followed to ascertain
the true state of facts before any
decree is entered. If the recon-
mendation as to taking testimony
on the question Of residence is fol.
lowed, we believe that there will
be an immediate and very marked
decline in the number OF cases filed
as those having fictitious residences
would be unwilling to face cross.
examination in open court.
We find that DEGREES for divorce
have been entered in the following
VS. RAlston, Strother VS. Strother,
Ramey vs. Ramey, Cosser vs. Cosser,
Berry VS. Berry, Ketron vs. Ketron.
Marshall VS. Marshall, Johnson VS.
johnson, Williams VS. Williams, Rau
VS. Rau, Sellers vs SELLERS, Payne
VS. Payne, MetralzoS VS. Metrakos,
Davis VS. Davis, Hamilton VS. Hamil-
ton, Talbert VS. Talbert, Butler vs.
Butler. Wilmington VS. Wilmington,
Hanlon vs. Hanlon, Lang VS. Lang,
Smith VS. Smith, Saunders VS.
Saunders, Seism VS. Seism, Tolliver
VS. Tolliver, Colbert VS. Colbert,
Ryon VS. Ryon, Williams VS. Will
Jams, Cook VS. Cook. Matthews VS.
Matthews, Berry VS. Berry, McDysan
vs. McDysan, Gong VS. Gong, Pollard
VS. Pollard, Lucas VS. Lucas, Nor
gan VS. Morgan, Venable VS. Ven-
able, Fahnestock VS. Fahnestock.
Anderson VS. Anderson, Cation VS.
Cation, Lavender VS. Lavender, Rob-
inson VS. Robinson, Kellams VS.
Kellams, King VS. King, Grover VS.
Grover, Collins VS. Collins, Hilton
vs. Hilton. Wilkins VS. Wilkins,
Rawls VS. Rawls, Lord VS. Lord,
America VS. America, Dey VS. Dey,
Sluss VS. Sluss, Stone VS. Stone,
Rathbone VS. Rathbone, Rommell
vs. Rommell, Cole VS. Cole, Cabell
VS. Cabell, Mangum VS. Mangum,
Moore VS. Moore, Laraby VS. Laraby,
Clement VS. Clement, McCurley VS.
MoCurley, Miller VS. Miller, Fitch
VS. Fitch, Scioli VS. Scioli, Boyd VS.
Boyd, Lyles VS. Lyles, Morse VS.
Morse, Woods VS. Woods, Bullock
VS. Bullock, Spear VS. Spear.
No Resident Testimony.
In the following cases no person
a resident Of Arlington county, Vir-
einia, testified as to the residence
of the complainant or Of either party:
Saunders VS. Saunders. StrOther VS.
Strother,, Hanlon VS. Hanlon, Rau VS.
Rau, Williams VS. Williams, Lang VS.
Lang, VenabeJ VS. Venable and Balm
VS. Balm. In all Of the other cases
in which DEGREES were entered, one
or more persons residents Of Airing
%rSA No1SmAw VirRinia testified m Ia