In order to guard against fraud by con niving to procure a divorce, power is gken to the Queen., proctor, by and 24 Viut., u. I It, to interpose. in ease he lut‘e reasonable groan(' to collusion or recrimination, in order to oppose a petition for divorce. The court may order the husband to pay a divorced Wile a cer tain sour for her maintenance dimming their joint lives. After (keret• of divorce the offending party may marry again, even with the paramour. Itut it is enacted, 20 and •1 Viet., c. s.1, that no clergyman shall be compelled to solemnize the marriage of any person Mho has been dieorced. lle 'mist. however, allow another clergyman', if willing to do to perform the marriage. By the acts of 1837 and succeeding years, parties are also entitled to obtain It judicial separation on the ground of adultery, cruelty. Qr desertion. Judicial separation is declared to be in place of a separation a inensti tt them. .\ married woman, having obtained a decree of judicial sepa ration, is declared to be in all respects as a jc»mc sole in regard to any property that she has or may acquire. Even before obtaining a a W0111:111 deserted by her husband may obtain from the court a protection for any property she may acquire by her own industry, I n t he United States, during the colonial period, the legislative latches in the several pro\ ince, gradually assumed the right of granting divorce, and after the I:evolution the system of divorce by legislative enactment became uniform ly established. Experience of this system prov ing its defective character, the jurisdiction over divorce was generally transferred to the courts of equity. and in many of the State con stitutions it was distinctly provided that divorce by legislative act should not be permitted. There is no national control over divorce legislation in this country, and, as the States are left to make their own laws regulating the dissolution of marriage, the greatest diversity in their treat ment of the subject has arisen. some of than re fusing divorce altogether, or granting it only for a single cause. and others going to the extreme of laxity in permitting the dissolution of the marriage bond.
This want of uniformity makes it impossible to lay down general principles as to the grounds on which divorce is granted in the United States as a whole, and a brief outline of time laws re lating to the subject in the different States is all that can here be attempted. There are laws granting divorce on certain specified grounds in all the commonwealths except Ni'W Mexico 111141 South Carolina. In the latter State divorce is not granted on any grounds whatever. either by courts of justice or by acts, and the results of this state of things offer an interesting subject for investigation to those who maintain the strict ennonival view with regard to the indissoluble nature of marriage. It has been remarked that the prevalence and partial legal recognition of ennenbinage are the effects of t his attitude toward the question in South Carolina. (Bishop's llarrifige and .1 In all the other Stales infidelity and vio lation of the marriage vow anc recognized as %alid grounds for divorce. In New 'York. adultery alone warrants absolute divorce in the eye of the law. Impotence or physical inability all States either justifies divorce or renders the voidable. \Villein desertion is general ly considered a sufficient cause, but the period of absence necessary to substantiate the com plaint varies in the different States from one to live years. ()tiler grounds more or less generally
recognized are habitual drunkenness; imprison ment for or conviction of felony; cruel and abusive or inhuman treatment; intolerable, ex treme. or repeated cruelty; failure of the hus band to provide for the wife; willful neglect for three years; fraud and fraudulent contract ; ab sence without being heard from for three to seven years; separation for tire years; reason able presumption of death by the count; ungov ernable temper; cruel treatment, outrages, or excesses. such as render living together intoler able; such indignities as render life burdensome; notorious immorality of the husband before mar riage. unknown to the wife: gross misbehavior or wickedness: gross neglect of duty; attempt on life: refusal of the wife to move into the State: mental incapacity at the time of mar riage: three years with any religious sect that believes the marriage relation unlawful; joining such a sect and refusing to cohabit for six months; inability to live in peace and union: settled aversion tending to destroy all peace and happiness.
Such are the various grounds on which the marriage tie may be dissolved in the United States: hut condonation. or collusion, or con nivance. with the purpose of procuring a divorce, is in all States regarded as a bar to the dissolu tion of marriage. In Georgia, divorce is only granted after the same verdict has been reached by two juries at different terms of the court. In Connecticut, Illinois. Kentucky, and Missouri. the divorced parties may remarry without re striction. ln Massachusetts, either party may remarry, but the defendant must wait two years and get the permission of the court. In Vir ginia a decree of the court may restrain the guilty party from marrying again; and in Maine the parties cannot marry till after two years without the court's permission. In New York, the plaintiff may 11111:1 rry, hut the de fendant is not permitted to do so in the former's lifetime except by the express permission of the court. or if. after five years have passed, the plaintiff has remarried, and the defendant's conduct has been uniformly good during the in terval. Violation of this rule is punished as bigamy. even when the other party has re married. In Delaware. Pennsylvania. and Ten nessee, the party divorced for infidelity to the marriage vow cannot marry the partner in guilt during the lifetime of the former spouse: nor in Louisiana, at any time. suelm marriage in the latter State being considered bigamy. In all the States, notably in New York. a jealous watch is maintained by the courts over their juris diction. and as a rule they refuse to acknowledge the validity of divorces granted to citizens of the State over which their jurisdiction lies by the courts of other Statics. unless such eitizens have actually come under the jurisdietion of those courts. From the conflict of laws in various countries on the subject of divorce, ques tions have frequently arisen as to the com petency of a sentem•e of divorce by a tribunal having power according to the lex Mei to pro 1101111ee such sentence. to annul a marriage con tracted in a country where such divorce is not allowed. It appears now to he the generally received opinion that wherever are domiciled they will be a 110NN vd to them selves of the law of this domicile. But the courts \rill not recognize a transient. visit to a foreign country as sufficient ground to sustain a divorce. See GoNFme• ut L.ws; DOM 1(1 LE.