force Denied Judgment was given by" Judge Milton D. Purdy in the U.S. Court for China on March 18 in the divorce action brought by Mr. Laura Cartagena against his wife, Mrs. Colerina "A. Cartagena. Petitioner alleged that the parties were married in Manila on January 5, 1920, an that his wife had left him in August of the same year. He alleged that she was at present living with another man in Manila. Accordingly, he prayed for an absolute divorce on the ground of: desertion.
Mr. J. B. Davies appeared for petitioner and Cly. G. Sellett, U.S. District Attorney, was present on behalf of the absent wife.
In, his judgment, Judge Purdy "Defendant was served with] process by publication, and a copy of the. summons end complaint was mailed to'her. This letter was returned to the clerk of this court stamped "unclaimed," and it appears quite probable that defendant has never had any actual notice of these proceedings, although the evidence Jat the trial showed rather conjelusively that the wife has been residing in the city of Manila or in ity during the past ten ars from the evidence that were married in the city of Manila on January 5, 1920, while the plaintiff was employed as a clerk jin the Government service, After their marriage, they went' to live with the wife's parents who were at that tinto running a boarding house, and, at the end of several months, to-wit, in August, 1920, plaintiff claims' that his wife left him and went to live with another man, The evidence with respect to this rather obscure and indefinite and is supported only by the statement of the. plaintiff, "Tt does appear, however, that in the month' of September, 1020, plainti? resigned his position and Heft" Manila for the "purpose Visiting his father and mother, who, at that time, lived in" one of the outlying provinces, and, after remaining with his' parents a few his father sent him Shanghai, China, Jand that' the Shanghai ey The principal part of the evidence adduced at the trial related the Infidelity of the wife, and claimed that four or five years igo the wife had two children the man who was supposed to have ten the ensue of the initial trouble Uetween these parties back in 1020, further appears that, in January of this year, plaintiff" visited. his parents inthe" Philippine. Islands fand was {n Manila on two occasions at the time of such visit, but that he did not make any effort to see his wife or to ascertain where she vas living o with whom, 1 anyone.
"it may "be that. the evidences presented at the trial would be suftcient to justify the granting of a divorce to the plainti on the ground fof adultery, but inasmuch. as. the complaint does not contain any such ge, and that desertion in 1020 is the only ground relied upon, I not feel that it would be proper for the Court to order a decree' of divorce upon the ground of adultery when it appears that the defendant has never had any notice, either actual or constructive, that she was charged with such an offence, "Tam inclined to think from the Jevidence produced' that, if. these parties had any trouble shortly after they were "married, "the plaintitr abandoned the defendant and. went back to his home in one of the provinces, and that thereafter his parents sent him to China where has since resided without. manifesting any further concern with respect to his wife, except to institute this suit for divorce in 1929.
"i, therefore, find that plaintiffs charge of desertion and abandonment on the pair of the wife hus nat been sufficiently proven to authorize the granting of a divorce. Tt the defendant has been guilty adultery, as emimed by che platt it, fand is now living in Manila with another man gs is wife with two of her children, it ought not to be all dificult for the plainti to produce abundant evidence of such Improper and illicit intercourse, "it is, therefore, ordered and. ad-Judged that plaintf's petition be dismissed and that he pay the costs of thin sui.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.