Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-04-27

the question Of marriage and divorce; and no
other State, nor its judicial tribunals, con ac-
quire any lawful Jurisdiction to interfere in
such matters between any such subjects, when
neither of them has become bona tide domi-
clled within it's limits. and any Judgment
circumstances, as an absolute nullity (Ditson
Y: Ditson, r. L; Cody on Const. Inns,
4OO, and notes there cited; Kerr vs.
Kerr, Al N. T.; Hoffman vs. Hoffman, 46
y. \. 30 Hanover 70. Turner, "a Mass. 21l.) It
does not appear upon the face OF the judgment
or decree OF in any Of its rectals that either Of
the parties were ever residents Of said territory
Of Utah, or domiciled therein. This il juris-
dictionsl matter which should appear to entitle
tne Judgment to any respect whatever; for
though it be conceded that tho Probate Court
that rendered the Judgment was in the legal
render the local laws of the territory over the
subject of divorce was special authority not
recognized BY the common Law, and its proceed
ings in relation to it stand upon the same foot
ing with those of courts of limited and inferior
Jurisdiction unaided by any legal presumptions
IN their favor. Corn VI. Blood 81 Mass.
640. The evidence was properly executed.
To dsproye any criminal intent the record was
also offered in evidence, coupled with an offer
to show that the defendant. acting under the
advice of counsel, believed in the validity Of
such alleged divorce, and that he contracted
the offense of polygamy the statute declares
that sif any person who has former husband
or wife living marries another person, or con-
tinues to cohabit with such second husband or
wife, he or she SHALL except in the cases therein
specified, be deemed guilty of the crime Of
poiygamy." The excepted cases refer to .
marriage after legal divorce by one not the
guilty cause thereof, and to one innocently
contracted under belief that the former wife
or husband is dead when such wife or husband
has been continuously absent either
beyond the sea or after voluntary
withdrawal and without being heard
from alive for the period III seven years.
It will be observed from these psovisions that
in a case like the one at bar, the existence of q
criminal intent in fact on the part of the ac-
cused, is not On essential ingredient of the
statutory crime charged. If the facts specified
in the statute are shown to exist, the law pre-
sumes the guilty knowledge and intent.
If the pretended decree of divorce upon which
he relied was in fact illegal, and void because
made by court having no jurisdiction, it af-
forded him no protection against the oonse-
quences of second marriage. whatever may
have been his motives or his belief in respect
ignorance. if any, was one Of law, and not Of
fact. His case, therefore, is one
to which the maxim. ''ignorantia iuris non
excusat" applies. Being, together with his
lawful wife, resident-citizen domilciled in
this State and subject to its laws, he was bound
to know that the tribunals of no other State or
territory could rightfully take cognizance and
jurisdiction over their martial relations for the
purpose of decreeing their dissolution; neither
could they acquire such jurisdiction through
any act of the plaintiff in temporarily changing
his domicile when done with no bona fide in
tention, but for the sole purpose of procuring 4
divorce in fraud of the laws of the State to
which he owed allegiance.
Judgment confirmed.
CORNELL. A. +