| OCR Text |
Show UTAH DIVORCES. Untying of the Nnptial Knots, and Loosening of the Matrimonial Matri-monial Bonds. Wholesale Disuniting of Souls With but a Single Thought, Cu Whose "Aims and Objects in Life are Different" DIVJRCK PRACTICE THAT POSSESSES THE 30UL OF WIT. j Keportofthe Grand Jury Committee Commit-tee on l he Probate touri Kccords. The Altiiruejx wlio tr to-tttttfvii to-tttttfvii iu Like ItuaiufMSi Im the Law Violated, or 1m thr Accommodation loo Great? The following is the text of the re port of the special committee who have been engaged in an examination of the probate court records of 8uli Lake county during the last twodays, and which was adopted by the grand jury yesterday and filed as a record ot the Third district court: To if. A". Harkness, Estf., Foreman, and the Grand Jury of 3d Judicial District, Apiil 'Venn: Gentlemen: Your conimUiee appointed ap-pointed to examine ami report upon the conduct ot an" iirs in the probate court of this county, beg leave to ofler the following as the result of their investigations: Your committee have confined themselves more particularly iu their investigations to the branch of divorce business as carried on in that court, and we would here say that it is be yond the limit and power of this committee com-mittee to give in detail every case ol divorce as it appears on tbe records ol the court; but we believe that tbe dhow iug of such cases as we present is a lair representation of the practice ol granting divorces in this court, and we think will fully convince this jury that the system of granting divorces in said court is such an outrage on justice and law that measures should be taken that would at once stay such proceedings. As an example of the practice iu said court we would state that from the beginning ot September, Septem-ber, 1876, to Sept., 1877, there have been upward of 300 divorces granted, and at least 80 per cent, of that number num-ber were applied for when both parties par-ties to the suit were nnn residents of the territory, and beyond the jurisdic tion of the said court. Under this practice it is quite evident that .great injustice must be done, and the mock-, ery it makes of judicial proceedings which is supposed to be the most, sacred trust ol any court. We find' that it is the general ruie of practice in this court where the parties are uou residents, and where the complaining com-plaining party prays lor relief from bis or her matrimonial obligation, te employ some not over sensitive or scrupulous attorney, and whose names are very seldom attached to the complaint, com-plaint, to forward tbe same to the probate pro-bate court, where the complaint is filed. Accompanying this document is an affidavit from the party complaining, to the effect that the grievances, etc., as alleged in the complaint are all made in good faith, and that he or sne, as me cast may ue, imeuus to become a resident of Utah,-but at present it is out of the power o I the applicant, and that the last known place of residence of the defend int is so and so, namiog tbe place. Upon the showing of these valuable val-uable single-handed documents made oy the plaintiff, bis honor. Judge -Elias Smith, issues- a summons to be addressed and mailed to the last known place ot residence, as sworn to by the plaintiff, and citii'g him or her to appear before be-fore his court in from twelve to sixteen six-teen days, and show cause why such relief should not be granted, as prayed for in the complaint. Now, the plaintiff in this case, for instance, lives in New York, which gives five days to go and five days to return, and which leaves a margin of only a few days for the defendant to con s'der whether he or she shall appear ap-pear in the action, but the time of this court appears to be too valuable valu-able to be wasted upon any such trifling contingency as the Bummons not reaching the party to whom it was addressed, even supposing that the last known place ol reside uce is giveo correct, but the court seems to have great faith in the postal department, and a letter must of course find the party to whom it is addressed; so, accordingly ac-cordingly ou tbe list day given for the appearance of the defendant his honor, Judge E. Smith, grants the decree as prayed for. Sucb, in brief, is tbe practice of this bogus-divorcs mill, where tbe parties are non-residents and when the complaining party prays for a decree ol divorce upon the grounds ol incomputi' iliiy ol temperament, diflerem aims and objects in life, etc., all of such reasons being the most frequently used. But we fiud a still more novel and direct method of obuflling of! matrimonial matri-monial obligations. For instance, a husband or wife, both non-residents, and either ot them making complaint com-plaint and swearing that the defendant defend-ant has abandoned bis or her borne, and filing such sworn statement without with-out any other cor rolora live evidence. oan get ine uecree grauieu ine bbiuci day as the petition is filed. As this may seem incredible for belief, ws will here cite several cases as examples ex-amples of many more, viz: Row Barry vs. Dennis Barry; complaint com-plaint filed Jan. 3. '77, and iworn to in Sao Francisco; decree granted the same day. Domioick Morogh vs. Josephine Mor-ogh; Mor-ogh; complaint sworn to in Now York City; filed Jan. 3, 1U77; decree gractod Benlly Stevens vs. Adeline Stevens: complaint sworn to in Chicago; tiled Feb. 2(1, '77; decree granted same day. Kobert E. Heibelns. Francis 11- Nea-bet; Nea-bet; complaint dworn to in Terra Haute, lad., and filed Fab. 20th, '77; decruo granted same day. Alice All wood vs. Nathaniel Alt wood: complaint eworn to at SL Louis; ti'ed Apr. 1G, plaintifTawcars that defondant'" last known place of residence wub a' sea, dscrre granted two dayg after li iog application John B.Vialva. B. D.Vial; complaint sworn toin N. Y.; filed April 5, '77, last L:oown place of ra-idonco of defendant, in Pracce; decree granted Apr. 0, :77. To further instance the fraudulent and nefarious practice of this divorce business we would cite the following cases: I Helen Leonard applies for a dWorce 1 from Peter Leonard, of Uldrington, : Canada, tiles ber complaint in this cunrt swearing to it in Allen Co., Ind.; aeki-ihat aeki-ihat as personal service c&nnat be made upon defendant within the jurisdiction of this court, that tho court direct thai se-vice be laken as forfaited, according to Sec. 5, Utah statutes, in reference to divorce; decres grantsd two days after filing petition. Mary fcimith files complaint against Orlo Smith on Jan. 29. '77; in application makes usual statement that she wishes t- bcome a resident of Utah, but circumstances circum-stances at present prevent; Orlo Bmith makei answer, sworn to before John F. Evans, clerk of common plons, Delaware, Dela-ware, Ohio, stating that plaintiff is not and never was a resident of Delaware. Ohio; that bur petition for divorce is a fraud pract'od by divers wicked and unscrupulous atturnoyti; dof ndant docs not consent to the jurisdiction of Ju Igo Smith's court and wants act:un di-t-solvL-d Decree C. Bates, attorney, on fob. lli, 'i7, demurs to defundan'-'s an-jwnr; an-jwnr; a plea as containing rio dufwrnw either in law or equity to the bill tiled in this court, and praya judgment according accord-ing to praynr in the bill; decrtte granted March 2d, '77. AmoliaS. Klifritz; petition sworn to, Chicago; applioa for divorce from Daniel G. Klifritz, Feb. 21, '77; defendant writ -8 Fob. 28, from Atlantic, Iowa, to tho court: "Received this day notice purporting pur-porting to como from you, io rcrd to it by my wife against mo. Notice doe not sar what lor; wanti particulnrs: sUtei ihat his wifd is not nor uevor was in Halt Lake; wants to know in time so ean smi attorney to defend. March 1st, writer apuin; falatos that his attorneys say that notice received is illngal unlesn fctato.i what action is brought fjr; ''if you render ren-der decree against lue for any hing without with-out legal process, will make k red hot for you," After this correspondence the court pursues tiio oven tenor of ilawiy und grants Amelia tho decree on the 20th day of March, 1S77. Another case presenting features of a novel character is as follows: A. H. j Grant writes irnm Rivik Snrinirn. Wv i oming Territory, Fob. IS, 1877, to D. Bock bolt, Esq., who is clerk of coutr, as follows: Dear A'r.- Horowith find complaint -inod. 1 have been waking to hear from my friends; have received an- i jwers trom two, alt 1 wrote, and thuy ar-j willing to make tbe alii- ; davit. I have written them to for ' .rd to me iuimotfiatoly. 1 ftolievi tbs 1 defendant is living at Anamosa, Jontu I Co., Iowa, was tbe last 1 heard of her. I don't know whether her sonsent could i se obtained or not, it would be according io her feelings in the matter. I wish to (rain this divureo with as little pub ic'ny i as possible. As soon hb the atlidtvits ar- j rive will forward thorn. Should I go , into Utah will inform you. I am ex- I peeling an otEco so mew hero in Utah soon, (Signed) A. H. Gamr. I His complaint is filed for divorce j Feb. 21st, sworn to before Solomon Rauf, J. P., Sweetwater Co., W. T., Feb. l(3th, 1877. March 2d, writei agaiu as follows : Rock Srarsus, W. T., Marcu 2d, 1877. Dear Sir I have two atlidavits iu my case; shall send them to you. I sxpoct two more in a few dnys, and if you w.ah i hum will send them all at once. Kespectfully yourB, (Signed) A. H. Grant. To D. Bockholt, Clark, Probate Court, Salt Lake City, Utah. Writes again March 10th, 1S77; To D. Bockholt, Esq.: Dear Sir Herewith find two affidavit, affida-vit, will send tba other soon as tbey arrive. (Signed) A. H. Gbxst. To this Louisa A. Grant, the defendant, de-fendant, makes answer under date of March 5th, 1877, that no service has been made upon her and she has only during the week past received a copy of the complaint and summons' through the mail ; has not had time to present to counsel coun-sel all tbe facts and circumstances to eaable bim to prepare her answer, but will do so with as little delay as possible; is advised by counsel that jhhehasa good and meritorious de-1 de-1 fanse. Her residence is Animosa, Jones Co., Iowa; said plaintiff abandoned aban-doned ber without cnuae, and left ber with two young children dependent upon her for their support, eaid children chil-dren being the fruits of the marriage between plaiutifl and this defendant. She is compelled to support herself and them by her own labor. She has no means to pay counsel for preparing prepar-ing and conducting her defense, and she asks to be granted reasonable lime for preparing her defense, and that the court will order that plaintin shall pay her such sums by way of J temporary alimony as shall seem rea- i flouable to this court fnr employing , counsel to prepare and conduct her defense herein. (Signed,)" Louisa A. Gkant. , Upon this showing the court grant , ed a continuance of thirty days, at the expiration of which time decree was granted April 13th, 1877. Your committee have examined one hundred oonsecutive cases and find amongst them the following: 13 granted same day as complaint filed 8 " 1 ' after ' " 9 " 2 ' " " 4 " S " " " " 3 " 4 " " " 1 " 6 " " " " 2 ' 7 " " " ' 1 " 8 " " " " 1 1 " 9 " " 2 " 10 " " " " 2 " 11 " " " " 2 " 12 ' " " 1 " U " " " 1 " H " " " " 0 " 15 " " " " 6 " Hi ' 3 " 17 ' " 7 " 18 ' " " 6 " 20 " " " " 1 " 21 " " " ' 1 " '27 " " " " 1 " 32 " " " 1 " 30 1 ' 31 " 10 " 40 and over" " " 3 UDBetlled. 1 removed 1 dismis;ed. We also find thai thj total nn mher of divorce cases applied for is 34o, in the probate court of this county, for tbe year ending Sept. 1st, 1877, and to show how rapid y this disgraceful business is on the increase, we give the number of cases for the first six months, dating from Sept. '76, as also the last six months, ending Sept. '77, viz: First six months, G2 cases. Last six mouths, 2SI cases. Your committee deem that the statistics sta-tistics taken from the records of this probate court, and as shown herein, are Bufficient'evidence to call for tbe prompt suppression of tbtse unjust and illegal proceedings, and your committee have gocd reason to believe be-lieve that other county probate courts of the territory are likewise engaged 1 in this class of divorce business, to an equal if not greater extent. A oignificaut tact as ubown by tbe examination of your committee is, i. hat nil divorces oa Inn 1mm nnn- residents, which we have examined, have been granted, no matter how triri ng or unreasonable the alleged grounds of .complaint, nor how iiifurinal the proceedings may be, except where some resident attorney tias appeared to make defeuae, and also in many cases the words, "County "Coun-ty of Salt Lake and Territory of Utah," were left blank at the lime the petitions were sworn to and afterwards after-wards filled in with another baud-wr.ling, baud-wr.ling, ditlerent from that in the body of the complaint. Your committee accompany this report with an aoalract of over one hundred and filly caes which upon examination examina-tion have been found not toddler materially in character from tuoe herein detailed. We also find that in a large number of cases the complaint com-plaint and all the papers in said cases are in the handwriting ol Elias Smith, presiding judge of tbe court, wherein the cases are pending showing the questionable proceeding of a judge practicing in his own court. The developments made by your committee in their investigation we deem fully vindicate his honor, Chief Justice Schaeffer, for his order enforcing the law relative to the inspection in-spection of public records, and furnishes fur-nishes an explanation of the resist ance of Judge Elias Smith and his ciork, D. Bockholt. H, Mackintosh, Geo. A. Lowb. The within report w adopted this 2lilb day ol Suptoinbur, 1877. Mautin K. Hakkness, Foreman. Attest : G. W. BoanviCK, Clerk. Tho within cases contained are complete in detail of place of residence resi-dence of plaiutitlj and defendants, date of complaint, as also the uameB of attorneys when given. Here follows fol-lows a tabulated statement of 150 divorce cases, giving, as above stated, the details in each Btiit. Out of the whole of this number the attorneys' names are attached to the papers in only seventy-two of the oases. There are eight Salt Lake attorneys and legal firms, each having but one caBP, and wherein the action appears legitimate legiti-mate aud regular throughout all the details. The bulk of the practice seems to have been done by three attorneys, at-torneys, M. M. Bane being accredited with sixteen suits, George C. Bates with twenty, and George A. Webster, twenty seven, these all being included in the seventy-two causes which bore the names ol counsel. It is not known by the committee who acted as attorneys at-torneys io the others of the caBes cited. |
