Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1881-10-26
DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE.

An i'm portant decision has been rem
dered by the New York court of appeals,
in reference to the rights of defendants
in divorce DEGREES in that state, and the
Rochester Democrat reviews the case. as
follows: .,@.-..r ..fs. ts. b
"The matter of re-marrlage In one
state after divorce has been granted in
another state, has been a perplexing
question in the courts Of many of the
states. A case occurred recently at the
west that was very annoying to the par
ties. A marriage was consummated be-
tween 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
pe tried ON the same charge in the state
where she was divorced. Many i1ldivid-
uals who supposed they were acting &C
cording to law, have been greatly har-
assed by the Interpretation of tho mar
rage laws of different legislatures.
''The lower courts IN the state of
New York have hitherto held that on the
dissolution of the bonds of matrimony
complainant could re-marry at will, but
the defendant was prohibited. And, al
though the defendant might be remarked
In another state, where no such prohibit
ton existed, it has been held the mar
riage 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
sister commonwealth were disregarded.
But the court of appeals has rendered
decision which will entirely change the
construction which the lower courts have
put upon the divorce laws of the state of
New York. It 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, is as follows:
Barker Van Voorhis, after becoming the
father of two children, was made de-
PENDANT in divorce by his wife. She OBJ
tanned decree in 1872. A year thereaf-
ter he married Miss Ida Schroeder, in
New Haven, Conn.,, going thither for
that purpose from New York. One
child, Rose Van Voorhis, was the issue
of this union. Van Voorhis died in
1879, and in 1880, in the distribution of
the estate, the question of the legiti-
macy of Rose came up, and the supreme
court decided that, as the second mar
riage in Connecticut was illegal, the
child could not share and share alike
with the two children of Van Voorhis by
his first wife. This decision went up on
exceptions to the court of appeals and
was reversed. The court held that a
marriage recognized by the laws of Con-
necticut were valid, not only in New
York, but everywhere.
"The decision relieves the defendant in
New York of the pains and penalties of
re-marriage if he decided to have the act
performed in Connecticut or Illinois.
The decision does not declare the law of
this state null and void, when applied to
defendant in divorce, who re-marries
in the limits of the state. But the de-
cision informs the legislature that the
statute which makes .bigamists of such
defendants as are divorced and remarry
in this state, might as well be repealed,
for it can be made dead letter at any
time by party appealing to the laws of
another state or seeking protection where
no such penal act prevents re-marriage. "