Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/456

 London Legal Letter.

407

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. MAY, 1904. THE case of Pollard v. Pollard, which has engrossed public attention for some weeks, is a peculiarly pertinent illustration of the admirable way in which jurisprudence is administered in England, and of the keen oversight which is exercised by the State to prevent the abuse oí processes of law de signed for the relief of innocent members of the community. In the United States the stat utes of the various States providing for dis solution and annulment of marriages are, without exception, wise and equitable. In England a wife cannot obtain a divorce from her husband unless she can prove that he has been guilty of adultery and desertion, or ol adultery and cruelty, while the husband may divorce his wife for adultery alone. Thus, although the husband may be guilty of ex treme cruelty and the wife may suffer to the limits of her endurance both physical and mental tortures, the only relief the law af fords is a decree of separation. The divorce statutes of the United States are conceived in a more liberal spirit, and afford either spouse relief in cases vhere the other by con duct or circumstances, such as cruelty, deser tion, habitual drunkenness, conviction of crime or insanity, renders proper conjugal relations impossible. It is notorious, how ever, that these wise laws are, in many parts of the country, so carelessly and negligently administered as to constitute a scandal. In undefended cases the judge appears to take the view that he has no right to enquire into the bona fides of the applicant, but must enter a decree if upon the face of the pleadings it appears that he has jurisdiction and the ex-parte evidence satisfies the letter of the law. In England, on the contrary, the judge in an undefended case submits the whole pro ceedings to the strictest scrutiny, and, if there is the slightest suspicion of irregu

larity, practically constitutes himself counsel for the absent respondent. Nor does the enquiry stop at the trial, for according to the English procedure there must elapse an interval of six months between the decree nisi and the decree absolute. During this time the King's Proctor takes it upon him self to enquire into every undefended case and if he discovers that there has been any irregularity in the proceedings, or any want of good faith on the part of the petitioner, or any collusion between the parties, or that anything has been kept from the knowledge of the judge at the trial, he promptly inter venes, and opposes the making of the decree absolute. He does not wait for the respond ent to make complaint, or for third parties to object. On his own initiative he puts the power of the government into operation to prevent imposition upon the 'court and the miscarriage of justice. In the case of Pollard v. Pollard, above referred to, Mrs. Pollard obtained a divorce decree nisi from her husband on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. There was no defence. Soon afterwards it came to the knowledge of the King's Proctor that the evidence against the husband had been ob tained by a well-known detective agency called "Slaters." Although the wife was or had been, a waitress in a restaurant fre quented by men in the business part of Lon don, and the husband was living with his mother in Plymouth on a few shillings a week, sent to him by his wife, the money paid to Slaters for procuring the evidence against the husband aggregated the enormous sum of thirty thousand dollars. This was supplied by a wealthy young man, a friend of the pe titioning wife. The Agency sent detectives to Plymouth to keep observation upon the husband in the hope of getting proof of his misconduct, but they were unsuccessful, and