, 1880-09-20
Validity of American Divorces.


We reported last week some remarks
bv the President of the Probate and
Divorce Court in granting the prayer
of petition of divorce. The facts
which gave occasion for them are sim
pie enough; but the principles which
thew Law down are Of the first impor-
tance. Mrs. Briggs, the petitioner,
1852. Both of them were English
subjects, resident here, and they con-
tineed to live together until 1868. In
that year he quilted this country, went
to the United States. and took up kls
abode in Kansas. Sir James Hannen
was satisfied that he did not intend to
settle permanently in Kansas. He had
left England, not from choice, but ne
cessity, and in order to escape his
creditors, ALI / he meant to return when
better times cane. But in 1873 he
procured from some court in Kansas
divorce from his wife on the ground OF
desertion, and few months afterward
he went through the ceremony of mar
riage with another woman. Was this
divorce valid in the view of an English
court? Mrs. Briggs applicatioa for
divorce from her husband could not be
entertained if the matrimonial tie had
already been cut, and it was desirable
to ascertain what was the effect CT the
decree OF the Kansas Court. In that
State justice appears to be Little
loose in its ways. 1t is not too fastldl-
Gus or tightlaced as to forms. The
Kansas courts are no friends of what
Milton termed the bondage of canonical
tyranny in regard to maria sc. They
do not ask before entertaining q petit
ton for divorce whether the applicant
if he have resided there for twelve
months. They do not seem even to
take very much care that the person
who is to be divorced has notice of the
proceedings begun against her. They
will be content if the petitioner states
on his oath that he has posted q letter
notifying his intention, and that he
has advertised it for three weeks in
some Kansas newspaper, the contents
Of which it is assumed cannot fail to
meet the eyes of all whom they con-
cern. Sir James Hannen has decided
that divorce obtained in this facile
fashion cannot be recognized here.
He comes to this conclusion, not in
consequence of the unfairness Of break
ing the most solemn contracts behind
the back of one of the parties to it, but
apparently because Mr.. Briggs was
still an Englishman by domicile and
because the Kansas Court had no juris-
diction to pronounce such decree.
The reason given by the President Of
the Probate and Divorce Court are not,
indeed, perfectly clear. Ii we are to
take it as still true that, as was laid
down by the judges in 1912 III Lolley's
case, "no sentence or act of any for
eign country or State can dissolve an
English marriage uincelo matyimoni
for grounds on which it was not liable
to be dissolved yiaculo natyimons in
England" it was unnecessary to deter
mine whether Mr.. Briggs had become
domiciled in Kansas. 1t would have
been enough to say, "This is al Eng
lish marriage; it can be dissolved only
for grave causes, such as adultery, ac-
companied by desertion or cruelty"
The reasoning in the judgment seems,
however, to invite us to infer that Mr..
Briggs had only to make up his mind
to settle in Kansas in order to get rid
of his English wife in tho easy way
known to people ere.-Londoa Times.