Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/38

 European Divorces While You IVait. smoke of battle the many-titled Princess withdrew, and may be living happily with her second husband till this day, though as her most distinguished ancestress, the first Princess de Chimay, was not content with a single divorce, our heroine has very likely imitated her and tried another. Divorce ap pears to be hereditary in some families. Let us turn now to a more modest story of the middle class. One Elizabeth Hickson, a young girl of sixteen, and an heiress in a small way, was living in England in the year 1828. She was sought out by a rascal named Buxton, by whose honeyed but de ceptive words she was induced to marry. The parties were secretly married, but never lived together, and Buxton's fraud having been discovered he was prosecuted, con victed, and sentenced to three years' im prisonment. After serving his term he ap pears to have quietly accepted the situation, and settled down in peace with another help mate. Elizabeth remained content in her single blessedness until she reached the age of thirty-two, when another wooer, one John Shaw, a student of law, paid his addresses to her in a more conventional fashion. His proposals were favorably received; but it was doubted (not altogether without reason) whether under the circumstances, the parties could safely marry; and a divorce was finally decided upon. Buxton was found, and (his

hope of profit from his marriage having grown cold) was induced by a payment of 40l for expenses and a contingent fee of 250^ to go to Scotland and remain there until a divorce could be secured. Buxton accord ingly went to Scotland, was followed by Elizabeth, and they were finally divorced in 1846. Shaw, meanwhile, fixed himself permanently in Scotland and became a mem ber of the Scotch bar. He and Elizabeth were married in June, 1846, and lived happily together until his death in 1852; the widow lived nine years longer. Three children of the marriage survived; but upon their claim ing their mother's property, her relatives attacked the validity of the marriage and the legitimacy of the children; the matter went through generate allrepresentatives the courts, and of the the Lordshonor (de-. and chivalry of England ) held the children bastards. Without commending this cowardly and questionable punishment of the innocent children for the sin of the parent, one may at least rejoice that the Court's attitude toward fraudulent divorce is unmistakable. It is clear that in every state spouses who desire to break their bonds may find out a way to do it; but it is equally clear that the courts are everywhere ready to declare such divorces illegal. In this good work no Court is more discriminating than our own Supreme Court.