Morning journal and courier., 1880-05-27
NEW HAVEN, CONN, THURSDAY MORNING. e7,
Thursday Morning, May 27, 1880.
MIR. BRIGGS PREDIcAMENT.

decree of divorce granted by Kansas | court has just been passed upon by branch of the English High Court of Justice, and the decision in the case calls attention to a very interesting part of the divorce problem A man named Briggs married, in 1862, in Bir- mingham, England both he and his wife be- ing British subjects. They got along well together, but Briggs was not successful in business, and in 1868 fled to the United States in order to avoid his creditors He first set tied in Cleveland, but became alarmed at seeing one of his creditors in that city and again fled westward and took up his abode in Kansas. Up to this time and even afterwards he had no thought of & permanent separation from his wife. He wrote to her both from Cleveland and from Kansas, asking her to follow him and to bring some money he had left with her. If fshe would do so, he assured her he could soon become a rich man, and then they could return to England and live out their declining days in peace and plenty. This was contained in letter dated in June, 1872, and he wrote to her several times af- forwards. Mrs. Briggs, however, refused to follow him. In March, 1873, only few months later, he had filed petition in @ Kansas court, praying for divorce on the ground of desertion and of course he ob- tained the decree easily. The only evidence of notice to the wife was the oath of the husband that he had mailed to her notice of the peti- ion, and the publication of the notice in Q Kansas newspaper. As matter of fact, she never heard of the legal proceedings until she learned that a divorce had been granted. Briggs had found another partner, and mar ried her in September, 1873. Mrs. Briggs sued for divorce in the English court on the ground of her husbands desertion, bigamy and adultery.
 The English court found no difficulty in granting Mrs. Briggs petition. Sir James Hannen, in delivering judgment, said the first question to be considered was whether Mir. Briggs had acquired 8 domicile in Kansas at the time of suing for divorce there. It was held that he had not, his letters showing that he went there involuntarily and with pur- pose to return Consequently, being still British subject temporarily residing abroad, he had not freed himself from the English law. His marriage was still an English mar riage, and the Kansas divorce was invalid on the old and very broad ground that ''no sen tence or act of any foreign court can dissolve an English marriage" The court expressly declined to pronounce an opinion upon the disputed point whether or not mans domi- cile is that of his wife, so as to compel her to become subject to the jurisdiction of any country to which he may see fit to go.
 The Kansas court treated Mir. Briggs as if he had acquired domicile in Kansas while the English court declares he had not. Mir. Briggs got his divorce apparently in an un- derhanded way, but still he got it. The action of the English court on Mrs. Briggs petition leaves him in an unpleasant position. If he has children by the woman the Kansas court left him free to marry, they will be le- gitimate here and illegitimate in England. He is member of society in Kansas Gf he is still there) in more or less good and regular standing, but according to the English court he is a criminal being bigamist and an adul- terer.
 What can be done to avoid such complied tions is interesting question. The sim plest and, on the whole, perhaps as just remedy as any, would be for the courts of each civilized country to consider divorce granted in any other civilized country valid.