The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1923-06-22
VA. JUDGE LAUDS
T|NESFOR
EXPOSE
Praises Publicity Showing
Menace of Arlington
Divorce Evil.
BY JOSEPHINE TIGHE.

| when told The Washington
| Times was preparing to publish ac-
counts of the menacing divorce con-
ditions in Fairfax and Arlington
counties. l instructed court officials
at both court houses to render every
| possible assistance, to open up every
avenue for giving matters full
and direct publicity. ] know of
no better cleansing power than that
of publicity. ] have carefully read
| all articles published in The Times
| and will say that they are abso-
lutely correct, accurate and fair
This was the, opening part of an
interview given yesterday afternoon
by Judge Brent of the circuit court
Of Virginia, as he sat in his sub
stantial home, in Alexandria. Sur
rounded by paintings of his de.
termined-faced ancestry, Judge Brent
looked no whit less determined than
they. His fine face spells determi-
nation. His manner is calm and
intensely decisive. He says he in.
tends to correct divorce conditions
in Arlington and Fairfax counties,
which are included in his jurisdic-
| ton.
Indorses Publication.
THE publication in The Times of
the names of those who have filed
suit for divorce in Arlington and
Fairfax" continued Judge Brent,
was an excellent beginning. In
many cases, / may say in practically
all suspected cases, summons mailed
to defendants at the given address
in Washington, or whereabouts, have
failed to carry-either because the
address was fictitious or because
street and house number were
omitted. Defendants may not even
know that divorce has been instituted
against them, so that the publication
OF the lists was excellent.
ION the face of things, it appears
that several of the lawyers whose
| divorced business was interfered
with. two years ago by The Times.
have simply continued operations py
shrewdly scattering their cases be-
| tween Arlington courthouse, Fair.
fax courthouse and Alexandria city
In this way they might have gone
an undisturbed but for the fact that
| called the. attention of the grand
1uries of both counties to the amaz.
Ing increase in the number of tli-
vorces and that The Times assisted
tremendously by its publicity cam
paign. My main object was pub
lic1ty and 1t has been. accomplished.
Not a Suit Filed.
The fact, as you tell it to me,
| that not single divorce suit has
been filed in Fairfax county since
1t became known, a month ago,
| that The Times was. searching the
court house record with a view to
exposing conditions there, is very
encouraging. ri hone YOUR ma
will continue to exploit the subject
| when the committees report back:
| to the grand juries, early this fall y
Asked what the penalty was IL
divorce plaintiffs had been guilty
| Of perjury in their sworn state
tnents that they were ,bone-fide
residents of Virginia. Judge Brent
produced a copy of the Virginia
| statutes and read:
For perjury; not less than one
year and not more than ten years
in the penitentiary, with fine at
| the discretion of the judge" in
cases where the court passes sem
! tence.
When sentenced by a jury: Jail
not to exceed one year or a fine
not to exceed 81 900; or both"
Should the grand jury find true
bills against plaintiffs who have
falsely sworn with regard 10 estab-
fishing legal residence in the State
| of Virginia, these plaintiffs will
| find little lenience when The cases
come before Judge Brent. There is
no question but that Judge Brent
means to purify the divorce courts
/ in his Jurisdiction, to uphold the
| dignity and honor of the State.