The New York herald., 1876-11-21
THE DAVIS DIVORCE CASE.

and Burrill, DAWSON K Burrill IN opposition
THE DAVIS DIVORCE CASE.
The trial Of tho divorce suit brought BY Mary A.
Davis against Samuel Q. A. Davis, which presents
peculiarly interesting features and has been
trial In tho Special Torn OF the Court Of Common
Pleas before Judge Van Bruns during the greater pcr
tion Of tho past week. summarily interrupted yes
terday by decision OF the Judge dsmissing the plain
THIS complaint Tho testimony taken In the case up
to Friday last when that plaintiffs side OF the issue
closed, the effect that in ocsobor 1862 tho
plaintiff, then a Mra Vance, and her sister lived al .
place named BoLham, In the State OF Texas Tho sis
ter was married 10 a man named Taylor, who had
SON, J. N. Taylor For somo reason not made clearly
apparent by the testimony MIRA vance's sistor was
anxious TO have her marry hor sepson. the younger
Taylor. On or about tho 9th Of October, 1850, Mrs
Taylor and Mrs Vance LETT Bonhsm, os,ensibly, a.
they said to pick plums Red River, about sixteen
miles distant Al Red River they met J. ". Tay-
lor and in hrs company, without stopping pick any
pums, far the evidence discloses, they
the tho territory OF the Cnfckasaw Indiana
and proceeded distance estimated by them at from
six to twenty miles, until they oamo to the cabin
OF = half breed preacher Of the Chiekssaw tribe. BY
him some sort Of marriage ceremony was performed
between the plaintiff the and J. NJ. Taylor, i'm
mediately after which they returned TO the homo OF
Tayiors father, and the next morning she departed
visit her friends In San Antonio eohabtason hav-
ing then, At any subsequent nme taken place be-
tween tho partics subsequently the marriage with
could if the Indian who 0lcated at the
emony with Taylor pronounced them man and wifs,
but she did not regard tho ceremony binding, and
considered herself tree to marry Davis. especially
~ sho and Taylor had given falsc names,
BY cohabi.s.,on. substaAtally this state Of
facts having been presented 20 the court
Sn ss par. S' n.
motion TO dismiss the complaint This motion was
made the ground That II appeared from The tssti-
time she was married to Davis she had lawful hus-
hand living in the person Of j. N. TAYLOR, whom she
riags with Davis was therefore void and she without
legal right TO MAINTAIN suit for divorce against him.
The motion was opposed BY Mr. Z. D. Mccarthy On tho
part OF MrR Davis, he claiming that t vas the
riage with Taylor and not that wish Davis which Was
void The Taylor marriage he claimed 70 be void on
not binding on whites, and that contract made by
whites under such laws could be enforced. On this
point a.d.o. was Sss Judge Van ssS1. rendered
dencc sufficient 10 show that the design Of
tho plaintiff and Taylor In going before tho
Indian minister to get married, from all the
facts the conclusion must DO dcduced that marriage
ceremony did then take place between them To that
conclusion he came reluctantly and all that remaued
Tor HIM was 80 declare Il had been his misfortune
TO have had before him number Of somewhat
similar and they bad caused him more anxiety than
all tho commercial cases before him. In discuss
ing the law ON which hc based hts conclusion that tho
Chlckasaw marriage was q valid one he said We had
the decisions o tho United States courts that tho In
dian nations were not foreign States nor was the ter
riiory which they inhabit foreign We had iur,her
OF the Union. rhey had hsen declared wards Of the
nation, and this the only explanation gwen 70
sss, relations 70 ne States and The general govern
and the certincats Of marriage gwen 10 Mrs
Davis At the ceremony with Taylor was en-
IRON tho case. But II the Indian law did not
apply 10 that marriage. what law did? No two per-
nninhsbcd, snd enter into contract wi,hou. se.ns
subject 70 some law. What awf The common law
applied only to En.sna and oSSn':s on ;..isd BY hsr
the canon law nowhere IN Europe or America These
parties were presumed TO have had IN view tho CON-
the civil law On the part Of plaintiff Il had been
contcnded that both BY the common law or England
na9. sn1 'Is Ssee e' SS
or magistrate But ho found In regard TO tho civil
law being the common Law OF Texas there author
ity for saying that the Intervention Of any person IN
holy orders was not necessary 10 contract marriage;
and In consequences Of these people being residents Of
Texas and the civil law being the common law Of that
STATE, they must DO regarded having oou-
traced In OF The Law Of the State whence they
came, and the owl law makes ceremony OF mar
ragc entered into between two parties per verbum do
present, binding contract upon those parties. Ap-
plying that rule 10 this case It necessarily made the
marriags IN the Indian Territory binding and valid
marriage without subsequent cohabitation- With
regret ho had been compelled TO come TO this concu.
sion. ~ no Ooileveo tuo phluStu entered into
subsequent marriage innoccntIy, and should have
far chance 10 enforce her rights against the de-
fcndsnL He hoped the case would 20 10 the General
Term although he had decided according bis best
judgment.
Mr. Mccarthy counsel for Mrs Davis, said the great
dinicuty in carrying tho up appeal that
his client was poor be had gwen great care 20 the
case, aud tho only question II which no had tho
slightest doubt that passed upon by the Court ~
the parties carrying with them tho law OF the
whence they into the Indian Territory, and on
that lie thought himself quite secure on h,s side.
Judge van Brunt ssid he would facilitate counsel In
cvery way he could TO get the before the ensrx
Term, and would direct the excephons TO be heard
there Tho nrst instance He then formally declared
his decision holding the marriage OF plaintiff In the
Indian Territory with Taylor TO have boen valid and
dsmssing her complaint against hcr present husband
Davis 10 which deois,on her counsel toeK formal cx-
ccption.
Mr. Mccarthy then asked for sixty days In which TO
make a on appeal. but Judge Van Brunt thought
II proper to allow but twenty days. saying he wish cd
settle the appeal while The facts were fresh
in hrs memory THIS dlsposcs OF the case for tho
present
SUMMARY OF LAW CASES.
Iu tho suit for damages for alleged malicious prose-
cution brought BY Francis d. Moulton against Henry
Ward Beechcr, Is noticed for ncxt month Tor