Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-11-08

from tue NeW Iofk Ouus NoNouoei 81
In the Supreme Court, general term,
yesterday, a decision was rendered in the
singular divorce case of Emma Hoffman
against Wm. Hoffman, involving the va
lidity of Indiana divorces. Mrs Hoff-
man sued for o divorce cinculo from
her husband, charging that he had com
mitted adultery. She was married to
him 10 Decem ber, 1856. In the follow
ing February she is elaine d TO have COM
mitted adultery with one Monroe, in the
Grinnell House in this city. Subse.
ouently, the husband moved to Indiana,
and in April, 1857, began an action
against bis wife for divorce for adultery
and abandonment. s-
A decree of divorce was soon granted
in the case upon proofs taken by COM
mission in the city In September, 1858,
the wife fled petition in equity in the
Circuit Court Of Howard county, Indi-
ana, to have that divorce set aside on the
ground of fraud. The Circuit Court de-
clared the divorce to be void for fraud.
On en- appeal to the Supreme Court, the
decree Of the Circuit Court was reversed,
leaving the divorce in full force.
The reversal, heyever, was not upon
the merits, but because the Court con-
sidered the common law right to set aside
Judgment by bill in pbancery, for fraud
bad been superseded by statutory modes
The ground on which the wife sought to
establish the fraud was that she was not
served with process, and did not reside in
Indiana, as alleged; and that the offense
upon which the judgment was predicated,
if any such there was, had been condoned,
the couple having lived together as bus
band and wife for long period Of time
subse uent to the offense, and their only
child, oegotten during this time, being at
prest mt before the Court for its DISPOSE
ton.
In September, 1863, after the final deci.
sion in Indiana, the defendant married
Ada Murgithroyd, by whom be has chill
dren. The plaintiff began the present
action in November, 1864, for adultery on
account of this marriage. II was tried
before Judge Joseph F. Barnard, without
jury, in December. 1865, and be granted
decree in Mrs. Hoifmsn's favor. This
is an appeal from that decree, and was
argued in January last. Judge Suther-
land delivered the opinion of the Court
yesterday Judges Clarke end @. g. Bar
nsrd ooncurring,
Judge Sutherland states the material
question 10 be as to the effect which
should be given here to the decree of the
Circuit Court OF Indiana as evidence.
la other words, should the Court below
have regarded the record Of the judicial
proceedings, including the judgment in
the Indiana divorce instituted by Will
liam Hoffman as conclusive evidences
that he had been divorced from the plain
tiff in this acton, his former wife, when
the acts OF adultery alleged in this &C
ton took placef Considering the pro-
vision Of the Constitution of the United
States, requiring full faith TO be given to
the Judicial proceedings of other States,
the question. he said, was not free from
difficulty. The question was one ex-
clusiyely az to the jurisdiction Of the Indi'
ana Cont to mske the Judgment or de-
cree. Though Emma Hoffman com
menoed proceedings in Indiana to set
aside the Judgment against her, that did
net estop her from insisting, on the trial
of this action, that the Indiana Court
never acquired jurisdiction Of ber
person so as TO make q decree which the
courts here we're bound to regard es con-
clusiss eyiience pf Q decree valid IS to
her. No doubt eli the proeeedjngs 10 the
action were regular, 5ai the question was
whether the courts Of this State will re-
gard the service Of notice BY pahlics-
lion in the Indiana newspaper as giving
The Indiana Court Jurisdiction Otthe per