The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1881-11-24
Divorce and Ke-Marriage,


An important decision has been rem
ence to the rights of defendants, in di-
vorcc DEGREES in this state. The matter
of rn-marriaoe in one state after a
divorce has been granted in another
state, has been perplexing question
in the courts of many of the states. A
case has occurred recently ut the west
that was very annoying to the parties.
A marriage was consummatcd between
parties both having been divorced from
former partners in different states. In
one state the husband was liable to ;,n
arrest for bigamy, and the wife could
be tried on the same charge in the state
where she was divorced. Many int,i-
viduals who supposed they were acting
according 10 law, have been greatly
harassed by the Interpretation of the
marriage laws Of different Legislatures.
Tho lower courts in the state OF New
York have hitherto held that on the dis
solution Of the bonds of matrimony q
complainant could re-marry nj will. but
the defendant was prohibited. And,
although tho defendant might he re-
married in another state. where no
such prohibition existed, it has been
held the marriage was not legal; that
the marriage gave no property rights.
and the party was subject to trial for
bigamy in this state. The acts of the
Legislature of q sister Commonwealth
were di.regariod. But the Court of
Appeals has rendered a decision which
will entirely change the construction
which the lower courts have put upon
the divorce laws OF the state of New
York. 1t maintains the sovereignty OF
each state within her boundaries. and
is in accordance with the fundamental
principles of the Government. The
case which went up on appeal. on
which the decision was rendered, as
follows: Barker Won Voorish, after te-
coming the father of two children. was
made defendant in divorce by his
wife. She obtained decree in 1872.
A year thereafter he married Miss Ida
Schroeder. in New Haven, Conn.,,
going thither for that purpose from
New York. One child, Rose Van Voor.
his, was the issue of this union. Var
the distribution of the estate, the ques.
ton of the legitimacy of Rose came up
and the Supreme Court decided thst, a:
the second marriage in Connecticut
was illegal, the child could not share
and share alike with the two children
of Van Voorhis by his first wife. Thii
decision went up on exceptions to tn:
Court of Appeals and was reversed
The court held that a marriage recog
nized by the laws Of Connecticut wa
valid. not only in New York, but every
where.
Tho decision relieves the defendan
in this state of the pains and penalties
of re-marriage if he decides to have tn,
net performed in Connecticut or Hi
nois. The decision does not declar
the law of this state null and void, whel
applied to defendant in divorce, VIII,
re-marries in the limits of the state
| But the decision informs the Legislature
that tho statute which makes bigamist
of such defendants as are divorced an,
re-marry in this state, might as we'll b
repealed, for it can be made q doa
letter at any time by party appealin,
to the laws of smother state or seeking
protection where no such penal &C
prevents re-marriage.-Rochester Dem
ocydt and Chronicle.