Attorney W. B. Schwartz yesterday attacked the constitutionality of the new divorce law before Judge Carter. He said there is no law that can compel a plaintiff to pay for the defense of his own suit. His client, William S. Moorman, refused to advance the $5 fee for defending the case, and the suit was dismissed by the court. Schwartz asks that his suit be reinstated.
“Claims Law Is Unconstitutional,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 12 July 1901, p. 6, col. 5; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 24 March 2014).
Law Requiring a Deposit Fee Said to Be Unconstitutional
The new divorce law was again attacked in Judge Carter’s court yesterday by the filing of a petition to reinstate a suit that was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to deposit $5 as a fee for the prosecuting attorney to defend the case. The case is that of William S. Moorman against his wife, Alforetta Moorman. The petition says that the plaintiff did not comply with the law because his suit was filed before the passage of the new divorce law requiring the plaintiff to advance $5 for defending the case, and that the law could not affect his action. He says it is unfair for the litigant to bear the burden of his own and his wife’s misfortune, and ‘pay a premium to the wrong doer from bringing about such wrongs.’ A paragraph of the petition reads: “That said law under which ruling and order was made in unconstitutional for the reason that it is local legislation, as, if it is a blessing to Indianapolis, it has more than its share of blessedness, and if it is a curse, this same place has more than its share of the burden.” The petition was filed by W. B. Schwartz.
“Divorce Law Attacked,” The Indianapolis Journal (Indianapolis, Indiana), 30 June 1901, p. 7, col. 3; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ : accessed 23 March 2014).