Show DIVORCE LAWS DIFFER WIDELY AMONG STATES difference in requirements shown in survey sacramento calif there are as many specifications for cutting the marital knot as there are states in the union lawmakers it would appear from a survey made by the california legi legislative bureau do not see alike when it comes to the question of divorce the requirements as a rule are many and varied in ill nevada where the divorce business Is considered in the light of a major industry a marriage may be dissolved solved for anyone who has lived in the state six weeks As contrasted to this south carolina reco recognizes no such thin thing as divorce except by special legislative art act in the individual case in tennessee proceedings may be based on any one of 13 grounds while new york and the district of columbia recognize only a charge of infidelity and in the latter the defendant may never remarry in pennsylvania south dakota and tennessee the defendant may pot murry the correspondent until after the death of the plaintiff an ar ran gement incidentally which puts a premium on the disappearance of the innocent party while these points would indicate that the disagreement over devotee divorce details Is general the survey points out that the states do agree on certain matters with only a few noticeable excel eions the states agree that in certain types of 0 divorce cases the parties must have resided in the state for at least one year the exceptions range from nevada with its six weeks law and idaho idab asking a three months stay to connecticut which requires a res idenie of three years and massachusetts chu which recognizes only those who have lived in the state five years the survey indicates there Is a definite consensus concerning causes for divorces as outlined in the stat slat utes thirty seven states have at al least seven grounds and only tour four in addition to the district of cola columbia recognize less than five cleven states apparently bate baie no sympathy for the defendant by set ting ong up restrictions concerning the right to remarry which do not apply to the plaint plaintiff lir |