The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-26
Judges Differ on a Nice Question in
Divorce Cases.
AN INDIAN TERRITORY CEREMONY.
important Decision by the Superior
Court, General Term.
MR. SHADES MUSICAL CLAIM.
Cornelius J. Vanderbilt and His
Million.
An INDIAN TERRITORY CEREMONY.
MR. SHADES MUSICAL CLAIM.

The General Term Of the Court of Common Pleas
Yesterday handed down small batch OF decisions aud
among others decided the suit for limited divorce
brought by Mary Ann Davis against Samuel T. DAVIS
On the ground of alleged cruel and inhuman treat
ment Her complaint was dismissed upon the ground
that she was not the wife of deiendan. as she had
contracted prior valid marriage with J. NJ ray-
or, who was living when the plaintiff married the de-
iendant The plaintiff In affidavit stated that the
form Of a ceremony OF marriage gone through
with ON the llih OF October, 1860, between her and
TAYLOR In the Indian Territory, within the Territorial
limits OF the Chiekasaw tribe ~ the caoln
Of resiaent in the Indian country; mat
she was then about twenty years Of age, ana Iaylor
vas about the same ago that they gave hctltious
names; that she did not suppose u 10 pc Dihuins
contract intend that IL should be- that hey were
then both living III Texas ana that the ceremony was
perormed IN the Indian Territory by Il haIf breed
preacher so that 1t should not be contract or valid
obligation on eltner party, ana was INDUCED 10 50
tbrouph The ceremony by her sister, that she told
II the time aud b. lIeved aud s,iii believes that no
MARITAL obligation incurred by the ceremony;
nut that aiterward recognizing thai the act was orc
rus consequences. she applied Tor aud obtained
ii he Indian Territory dIsso of Tho contract
Boln Chief Justice DAILY ana Judge Van Hoesen wrote
;oncurrng ornions IN WHICH they pronounce Inc
augment below correct. Chief Justice Daily, IN the
course OF a lerghy and elaborate opinion, after exam
ming the relating 10 the ceremony very care
luliy says IN conciuson:-" Society rs too deeply
interested in the institution Of marriage TO allow 10
be irled with in this way-to recognize the right OF
one parties aUroga,e II and marry again be-
cause correctly gwen to the cier-
lyman performed the ceremony, or concealed Tor
purposes OF their al the time. In other WORDS,
when parties competent 10 contract mar
Iage deliberately 90 before clergyman, or, as
this case, preacher, ana have marriage ceremony
performed, they are by their own voluntary act mar
ned by the laws OF civilized countries or at least
y our laws neither alterward evade get rid OF
lie obligation at his or her mere VIII or volition IL IN
no way Affects the validity OF the marriage that IL took
place the Indian Territory The laws oil the Indian
Territory designed for the government OF
Indan residents OF the TERRITORY, and by
treaty The nonresident whites exempt from
their operation. So far We know IL would
have been valid marriage bad IL taken place IN
TeXis, Il the validity OF tho contract Is 10 be deter
By the law OF the domicil OF the parties. sec
ground Tor reversing the judgment OF the Court
below, auu, IN my OPINION, II should be Hlirmed."
Judge j. f. Daily, IN a dissenting opinion, thinks
the o marriage was insufficient TO war;
the judgment given below. Ho says:-'rhe ev
dcnce TO annul marriage should be conclusive
enough 10 warrant conviction OF Digamy when such
evidence IN this case proceeds TO the length, II II
amounts anything. OF connecting her OF entering
the second marriage with the knowledge that the
former marriage luIl force. In this case the
missions SIMPLY OF tue legal effect oil u ceremony
There conabitation consequent upon such form
contract, and shc is held to the serious conse-
qucnces OF her opinion OF the effect oil proceeding
whcn she describes under oath in such a way AS To
destroy tue elect OF her admissions. am In favor OF
reversing the judgment and ordering new trial"