The Washington times., 1923-06-19
LAUNCH PROBE
OF VIRGINIA
DIVORCES
80
Committee Named by Airing
ton County Judge to Report
on Conditions.
Continued from Page 15)

NConLlnued IrOm rage 10J
within county, employ legal ad.
vice of attorneys Of that particular
county, such attorneys being known
and regarded by the court and are
accessible to the jurisdiction.
Now, all is changed. In divorce
suits instituted at Fairfax Court
House during the year ending De-
cember 81, 1922, so per cent of
cases were filed for the plaintiffs
by foreign" lawyers, and S. per
cent for the first four and a half
months of this year.
When domestic difficulty arises
in home in this modest, quiet
commonwealth it is matter of
common knowledge: plaintiffs be-
ing well-known and the defendants
seldom, IL ever, disappearing in
thin air. Usually they are some
where" some known where" and
answer the summons. But in the
majority Of actions for divorce filed
by lawyers not of Fairfax county.
the summons sent by registered
mail to the defendants. is returned
Party Unknown At Address
Given" Orr Party Not Found"
It is next to impossible for the
court authorities to ascertain
whether the plaintiff is a bone
fide resident of the county. Only
at the great cost of hiring a small
army of detectives. or by numer-
GUS Federal postal inspectors. can
the court be assured that plaintiff
actually has, lived the requisite
amount of time within the county
or has even received mail at one
of the dozens of small postoffices
or by way of rural free delivery
arteries.
Not Seeking Fees.
Practically, any county clerks
office lives by its fees and Fairfax
is no exception. Each divorce case
filed amounts to about SO for cost
of notification. filing. warrants and
other fees. Such amounts. when
received through legitimate chan
nels, are necessary and welcome;
but Fairfax's clerk and deputies
want no grist from an irregular
divorce mill and such fees are not
solicited by the commonwealth Of
ficials. Clerk Richardson and
Deputy Clerk E. R.. Holbrook are
standing strongly by Judge Brent
in his effort to rid Fairfax county
Of any possible stain by way of
glut in the divorce mart.
Investigation of Fairfax county
records show that not until after
publication of the Alexandria
courts did the foreign" attorneys
practice to any scarcely percept-
able extent in that county. In the
last fifteen months forty-four of the
sixty-six suits filed at Fairfax
Courthouse have been presented by
foreign" attorneys.
They Refuse Them.
There are over a dozen we'll
established lawyers in Fairfax,
among them being John w. Rust,
w. T. Oliver, w. M. Ellison, F. D.
Richardson, r. r. Farr, w. M.
Farr, r. E. Thorton, r. w. Stumph,
E. B. Hutchinson, George B. Robey,
A. c. Ritchie and the firm of
Barbour, Keith, McCandlish and
Garnett. Spokesman for these at
torneys do not hesitate to admit
that they are continually refusing
to handle cases for persons who
understand 1t can be worked"
that Justice Is asleep at the switch
and that such cases can be rail-
roaded" through.
But that chief engineer, Judge
Brent. isn't asleep as his charge to
the Fairfax grand jury, and his
later charge to the Arlington grand
Jury, indicates. Already, he has
hung a red light on the caboose.