The New York herald., 1876-11-17
THE COURTS.
The Davis Divorce Case Ap-
pears Again.
A N I G E p O L N T !.
IL the Nm asriaEa az 1,un Whifs pansnns In fha
Is the Marriage Of Two White Persons in the
ChiekaSaw Nation Legal:
A QUESTION FOR THE LAWYERS.

Tie divorce case Of Mary A. Davis against Samuel G.
a. DAVIS all !hefacts relating to which were published
in detail in the HERALD the motions tor
aimony, &c, mado in the court some time ago,
came up again yesterday in the Court OF Common
Pleas, Special Term, before Judge Van Brunt. on tho
Trial Of the issue OF facts tho motion for limited
divorce 1t will bc remembered from the accounts
already published that the plaintiff married to the
defendant San Antonio, Texas, the lst Of June,
1870, and that In 1875 she left him because Of
his inndellty TO his marriage VOWS, she
alleges. In his counter anldavn the defendant
contended that the plaintiffs "impropcr language
ana ill-conduct' such tended to ALLEVIATE his
Affections from her. that four months after their
marriage she evening left the house where they
were residing In this city and remained away three
whole days Yesterday Mr.. John McKeon, counsel for
the defendant, read tho nterrogatories put by the
commission several persons in Texas who had
known the plaintiff from childhood, tho answers to
which showed that she had been twice married before
she met Mr. Davis; that her first husband was a
named Vance, now dead and that her alleged second
one was J. II. Taylor, who 10 yet living 1t
seems that upon the question OF the validity Of
The alleged marriage OF the plaintiff with Taylor
The whole interest OF the proceedings were yeser-
day centred, and some very nice points raised by
Nj. Z. D. Mccarthy the plaintiffs counsel In her
affidavit. used when the motion alimony was made
the plaintiff conceded that she had gone through a
ceremony" " OF marriage with J. NJ. Taylor In the
Chickasaw Nation but that she did not think IL
binding, as they were married under assumed names.
She also says in this affidavit, that coming to tho
conclusion somc months after the ceremony
had been performed that 1t might, after all,
prove serious" she secured divorce from
Taylor from the same authorities In the
Chickasaw Nation by whom they had been married.
MI McKeon's view Of the matter IL that the marriage
was valid one, and II his point is well tnken the
suit would be that tho plaintiffs suit against Davis
would be OF no avail as he could not be ner legal hus-
previous to her marriage with Davis Is yet alive AS
10 her having procured divorce from Taylor there Is
no other proof Of the alleged fact than her nega
tion, according TO tho counsel for the defence Mr..
McCarthy's argument, which he began early in the
afternoon anc had not concluded at the time tho
marriage between tho plaintiff and Taylor
was no marriage ALL aud therefore that her marriage
her suit against Davis Is really suit against husband
oy woman who is his legal wife, He based this view
Of the case on the ground that the Chickasaw Nation
could not make laws binding resident whites;
that It was simply ward OF the United Satcs, and
could only exercise such powers as were
conferred upon It by the United States. He
argued thar ceremonial marriage" Of
Nonresident whites in the ChcKasaw Nation
could be other than void under the circumstances
To fortlfy his position Mr. Mccarthy offered In evil
dence the treaties between the United States govern
ment and the Chickasaw Nation Of 1855 article page
aHu VI looo hIticIe page oUA, WnlCH ne con-
tended proved that powers had been conferred upon
the Indians binding the whites and that what powers
we're conferred were binding on themselves alone
with certain exceptions He said that the Chickasaw
Nation had no more authority TO make law binding
law binding the whites in this State A very
estinR discussion took place between the Court and
the counsel as TO whether there was any difference
between what the latter called ''natufai" and .
marriage under the common law. An explanation Of
The difference was asked for by Mr. McKeon when, dur
Ing his explanation, Mr. Mccarthy contcnded that the
common Law did not reach the CncKasaw Nation. Tho
Court did not seem to be of the same opinion and
hence the discussion to whether there really
any difference between what tho counsel called mat
ural' and common law marriage. Upon the point
raised by tho counsel for the plaintiff whether the
marriage in the Chckasaw Nation OF TAYLOR and tho
plaintiff valid depends tho validity OF the suits
pending against Mr. Slavs besides the for linn
ted divorce there is another for absolute divorcc