[357] Here is an example: "The bonds of matrimony between Obediah J. Niles and Hannah M. Niles shall be and the same are hereby dissolved."--_Laws and Resolutions_, I, 373 (act of Feb., 1857). For other cases see _ibid._, 569, 570 (two cases, 1858), 653-55, 656 (three cases, 1860), 766, 767 (two cases, 1861). On Jan. 23, 1856, six petitions in one bill were referred to the judge of the district court for the first judicial district with power to dissolve marriage: _ibid._, 300.
[358] _Private Laws of Kan._ (1860), 232-54. For other cases see _ibid._ (1858), 10-12 (three cases); and _ibid._ (1859), 41-45 (eight cases).
[359] _Cf._ _Laws of Ia._ (1840), 12; _ibid._ (1840-41), 7, 12; _ibid._ (1841-42), 3, 11, 13, 28, 30, 31, 66, 73, 94, 95 (eleven cases); _ibid._ (1842-43), 82-84 (nineteen cases); _ibid._ (1845-46), 42, 48, 51, 52, 61, 72, 79 (eleven cases).
The practice existed also in Idaho,[360] Montana,[361] and Oregon.[362] On the Pacific coast, however, Washington is the chief offender. Beginning with three cases in 1858 and one in 1859, the number mounts to fifteen in 1860, seventeen in 1861, fifteen in 1862, and sixteen in 1863; while after this date the session laws are silent on the subject.[363]
[360] There are two cases in _Laws and Res._ (1871), 86, 91; others in _Gen. Laws_ (1879), 54, 59-61; five in _ibid._ (1881), 439-41; and four in _ibid._ (1883), 164, 165.
[361] _The Private and Spec. Laws of Mont._ (1864-65), 554, 610, 685, 695, 699, 700, show nine cases of legislative divorce.
[362] For examples see _Spec. Laws_ (1857), 12; _ibid._ (1857-58), 107, 108, 110, 111, 112 (twelve cases); _ibid._ (1858-59), 92-107 (thirty-one cases).
[363] See _Acts_ (1858), 53, 54; _ibid._ (1859), 62; _ibid._ (1860: private laws), 473-79; _Session Laws_ (1861: local laws), 71, 73, 74, 81, 83, 92, 93, 101-3, 110, 131, 132; _ibid._ (1862), Index; _ibid._ (1863), 138-44.
In some of the old middle states the custom was particularly tenacious. Of it the New York laws show scarcely a trace;[364] and in those of New Jersey no evidence at all has been discovered. The case is very different in Pennsylvania. Although in 1785 the courts were empowered to grant full or partial divorce for the causes specified, the habit of resorting to the assembly, especially when the offense complained of was not a cause recognized by the statute, survived from the provincial era. Thus in 1805 Rebecca Adkinson was released from her spouse Thomas, who for crimes committed had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment. "Whereas it appears that the conduct of the said Thomas, from the month of May, 1803, to the present time, has been one continued scene of vice, evincing a total dereliction of morality, and an entire neglect of his wife and tender infant," therefore, since the law has not provided for such emergency, the assembly sets Rebecca absolutely free from the wedding bond.[365] During the next year a case of somewhat unusual character arose. From the preamble to the bill it appears that as early as 1777 Jacob Sell and Eve, his wife, had divorced themselves by mutual consent, the woman by a written instrument relinquishing all her rights under the marriage. Thereafter, the man considering himself entirely free from former obligations, took unto himself another wife, "by whom he now has living six children." Through "hard labor and honest industry" a considerable property was in due course acquired, some of which Sell had transferred. To this under the existing laws he could not give perfect title because of a claim to dower which "the aforesaid Eve may be supposed to possess." For this reason, and because he had grown old and was in a "delicate state of health," the assembly granted his petition for an absolute dissolution of the first marriage.[366] From this time onward many divorce decrees may be found in the session laws; and not until the adoption of the constitution of 1874 was the practice entirely abandoned.[367]