Morning journal and courier., 1881-02-15
Tuesday Morning, Feb. 15, 1881.
A NOTABLE DECISION.

1 A decision which is making some stir has been given by two New York judges sitting I in the General Term of the Superior Court. The case was divorce case and the facts are | these: In 1855 Gould H. Thorp was married
 to Emma 0. Reed, and in 1861 he was di-
 vorced from her on the ground of his adul-
 tery, the decree containing the usual prohi-
 bition of remarriage during her life. Subse- quently, in 1875, while she who was Miss Reed was still living, and while Mir. Thorp l was domiciled in the State of New York, he went to Philadelphia with the defendant in this action, who was also domiciled in the
 State of New York, and was there married to her. Afterward they both returned to New York and have since resided there The case under comment was petition by MT. Thorp for the dissolution of this marriage on the ground of his wifes adultery. She did not
 seek to contradict his evidence. but rested
 her. defense solely upon the ground of his
 inability to marry in consequence of the pro
 hibition contained in the first decree of di-
 vorce. There is 8 touch of absurdity in both
 his case and hers. He asks the law to relieve
 him from a contract into which the law had
 forbidden him to enter, and she voluntarily
 pleads that she cannot be divorced because
 she is no wife Her view is the one taken by
 the court.
 The New York Tunes thinks it nearly cer-
 tain that this decision will stand, for although the question has never been passed upon by the Court of Appeals, there are recent simi-
 lar decisions by different districts of the Su- preme Court But it is strange anomaly that man may be married in one State, as MT. Thorp doubtless was in Pennsylvania, and not married in another, as it seems Mir. Thorp was not in New York. The result is clearly the punishment of Mrs. Thorp for the wrong doing of MT. Thorp, while MT. Thorp, by being released from the oblige- tions of the marriage, is rewarded for the 1 wrong of contracting it. The Times ] says: stIt is possible that she might be considered a conspirator with him to evade the law, and so a sharer in l his act who might very well be left to suffer l with him the consequences of their joint l wrong doing. But the marriage would have | been none the less invalid if she had been | perfectly innocent of wrong in intent or in | deed, as, for instance, if she had been resi- 1 dent of Pennsylvania who had married in | ignorance of the law of New York, or possi- bly even of the prior divorce itself. In any | case, the children of such marriages must be entirely innocent, they also must be the worst sufferers by it. Perplexing and con- tradietory as the subject seems, one point is sufficiently clear: MT. Thorp-that is to say the person violating the prohibition of remarriage-is alone to blame, and should alone be punished. It would seem that that object might be promptly and sufficiently att tained by making it some one's, and very fit- ly the wife's, right and duty to see that he is punished for contempt of the court which forbade him to marry. But, in order to init igate the effects upon innocent women of the to which Mrs. Thorp-to judge her by her plea-seems so shamelessly insensible. the interference of the Legislature would | probably be necessary"
 If the decision of this case is law quite | number of the people of New York living | together as man and wife are in an awkward position, for they not married, as they have hitherto supposed themselves to be. The case is striking illustration of the pe- culiarities of laws concerning marriage and divorce in this country.