Hawaii Holomua, Volume III, Number 189, 15 August 1894 — EX PARTE. [ARTICLE]

EX PARTE.

i ! The McGrew Divorce Case i In f«nn«-r ifsnes we b.«ve bad . ocas.' r, to refer tue eauae eele- ! bre oi tbe season, the dirorce suit | ’ brooght by tbe guanlian of Dr. j Henri McGrew, a non eompo* men(i* agaiost Jeanelte McGrew, j bis wife. The decision o£ the j majority o( our Supreme Coart ■ ' in allowing a divorce suit to be brougbt per guardian has bad I our full attention. As tbe case , now will be a matter for diploi matic interfereiice, we sball not ent**r iato tbe dt*tui!s at tbis date but we desire to mentiou tbe | raling of Judge Cooper, wbicb virtnally prevented thrce persrn? ' ueci>se«i of adoltery from defending the:oselvf8*guinst tbe cbarge I | or even giving a general denial. i The ruling of tbe conrt resulted i iiu the witbdrawul o( Mr C. W. | > J Asbford, the attornoy for tbe j • lihelee frorn tbe case. The fact jiconnected witb this ruhng are | ( briefly us folloWs: Tbe libelee j . resides in San Fruucisco, and the ! guardiuu of her busband bases ! tbe divorce snit on a charge cf ! adultery agaiust ber, m-iking two } nameii persous correspondents. ; i After tbe uup.xralleled decision | of tbe Snpreme Court was gireu : 5 tbe case was Leanl on its merits. ! Tbe attorney for tbe lib§jee had , some times ugo requost«Hl tbat a t commissiou issne frora tbe conrt 5 anthorizing evidence to be tsken . in Siu Francisco. Tliis request : was repeated yeaterday, and ul- i t tbongb the couit ndmitte'd tbe . rigbt of tue lihelee to Lnve sucb , a commissiou issued, it hekl tbat it was t5o lute to grant it at tbe t present stage of the o >.se. The i judge cousequently refusad to > allow a eoinmiaaion to be issued ) aud the c»se will simply bc de- [ cided ou tbe ex-parte evidence ■ produced by the libellant (per t guardian) without giving the i other side a ehanee to «nswer or i to deny or disprove tho allega- . tions set fortb. Tbe only } romedy left for the lihelee is to r seek redress throogh the ieprei Bnt it fls a pity tbat a case in whioh ) oor coorts bave, throngh their . own acts placed themsolves iu an i anenvinblopositionshullbe made i tbe subject of investigutioa, eomments und eventual action of a . country where everybody is equal > before the law, aud wbere the t ooorts are led only by the dici tates of law, never by reasona of “policy” or private feelinga as ■ evideutly ia the case iu Hawnii.