The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1881-12-02
Divorce and Re-Marriage.

An important decision has been ren-
dered by the Court of Appeals in refer
cnce to the rights Of defendants, in d.
vorce DEGREES in this state. The mater
of re.marriaSe in Que state after II
divorce has been granted in another
state, has been perpleNing 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 consummated between
parties both having been divorced from
former partners in different states. In
one state the husband was liable TO an
arrest for bigamy, and the wife could
he tried on the same charge in the state
where she was divorced. Many indi-
viduals who supposed they were acting
according to law, have been greatly
harassed by the Interpretation Of the
marriage laws of different Legislatures.
The lower courts In the state of New
York have hitherto held that on the dis
solution of the bonds Of mstrimony q
complainant could re-marry nj will. but
the defendant was prohibited. And,
although the defendant might be re-
married in smother state. where no
such prohibition existed, il has been
held the marriage was not legal; that
the marriage gave no property rights,
and the party was subject TO trial for
nigamy in this state. The acts of the
Legislature of . sister Commonwealth
We're disregaried. 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. Ii 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 tho decision was rendered. as
follows: BARKER Won voorish. after be-
coming the father of two children. was
mad" q defendant in divorce by his
wife. She obtained decree in 1872.
A YEAR thereafter he married Miss Ida
Schroeder. in New Haven, Conn.
going t!ither for that purpose from
NeN York. One child. Rose Van Voor.
his. was the issue of this union. Van
Noorh~ die, in 1879. AMI in 1880, in
die iistri ;u;iou of The estate, the uiIeS-
ton Of the 'c.itimacy of Rose came up,
and tue supreme Court decided thai. ~
the scr"ud marriage in Connecticut
was il! .nal. the child could not share
and share ak. with the two children
Of Van Vonrhis by his first wife. This
decision went mp Oh exceptions 10 the
Court Of Apresls and WAS reversed.
The court held that n marriage recog-
nizei hr The laws of Connecticut was
vaii,i. not only in New York, but every
where.
The decision relieves the defendant
in l:is state Of the pains and penalties
Of rr-marriage if ne decides u have he
nc, performed in Conuerticu. az l!li-
noiS. The decision does not declare
the law of this state null aud void, when
app. led 10 defendant in divorce. who
re-marrieS in the limits of the state.
Brt the decision informs the Legislature
that The statute which makes bigamists
of such defendants rs are divorced and
re-marry in this state, might rs we'll be
repealed, for it can be made dead
letter ut any time by party appealing
to the laws Of another state or seeking
protection where no such penal act
! prevents re-marriage. - dorchester Dem
0ciW and thTORic'e.