River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1877-03-29
A Utah Divorce which lie Worrying a Min
uesOta Man

The preliminary examination of DR..
John L. Arlington, of Northfeld. be.
fore the Municipal court of Minneapo
lis Saturday, OH the charge of polyg-
amy, resulted in his being held for
trial in 1000 bonds at the May term of
the District court. All the parties to
to the case viz: The first and second,
wife the daughter who made the COM
plant and the defendant. were in
court. The prosecution was conduct
ed by George X. Robinson, and the de-
Tense by Messrs. Reynolds and Rowe,
and the proceedings were watched
with great interest by those in atten.
dance, as they will be by the people
of the State, among whom the defend
ant has very large and favorable &C
quaintance.
In proof of the charge of polygamy,
the marriage to the first Mrs. Arming-
ton as far back as 1919 was shown, the
parties to such marriage living togeth-
er as man and wife until up to within
between two and three years back, as
also was his marriage in Minneapolis
on the 18th day of January last, by
Rev. L. s. Williams, 60 Mrs. Weller
with whom he is now living in mar
riage.
To these accusations the defense en-
tered nc denial but offered in evidence
bill of divorce granted DR.. Arlington
from his first wife, Martha l.. Arm
ingtnn, by the Probate Court of the
county of Box Elder. Utah Territory
obtained in December last.
The prosecution interposed to this
that the divorce in question was void
upon the ground that the court had no
jurisdiction and that it was obtained
by fraud. The prosecution also offered
in evidence certified copies of all the
documents in the case upon which a
bill of divorce was granted. These
documents show that the petition was
made out in Northiield in this State,
the petitioner representing that he
''desires to become resident of Box
Elder county, u tah, and that the aims
and tastes of the plaintiff and defend
ant in the action for divorce are en-
tirely different and that they cannot
live compatibly together in peace and
harmony. Therefore the desire that
they be relieved of the burden Of the
matrimonial yoke.
Accompanying the petition is the
summons issued six days after the afli-
davit was sworn to in Northiield for the
defendant, Mrs. Martha Arlington
was TO appear and answer to the COM
plant forty days after the service of
the summons upon the defendant by
mail, in Box Elder county, Utah so
that under the order. forty days from
the mailing of the summons in Utah
the first wife must have put in an an
swer, had she SO desired. But in fact
she did not receive the summons until
four days before the decree was grant
ed. But she did not answer, and the
decree was granted only some forty
six days after the petition was made
and in NOrthlield, in this State. The
details of the case are thus given mi
nutely, to show how divorces are OBJ
tanned without publicity and without
trouble.
The question of the States rights
over residents within State boundaries
and the other points at issue, were
deliberately argued by the prosecution,
at the conclusion of which the Judge
of the court, Cooley, decided that the
Utah court had no jurisdiction so far
as the attempted divorce of DR.. Ar
mington and his first wife was concern
ed, and therefore the Doctor was held
or trial as before stated.