The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-12-24
Divorce and Re-Marr;are

An important decision has been rem
dered by the Court of Appeals in refer
ence to the rights of defendants, in tli-.
vorce DEGREES in this state. The matter
OF re-marriage in one state after q
divorce has been granted in another
state, has been perplexing question
IN the courts of many of the states. A
case has occurred recently at 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
be tried on the same charge in the Estate
where she was divorced. Many indi-
viduals who supposed they were acting
according -tosiaw. have been greatly
harasaed Etke interpretation of the
marriage laws OF different Legislatures.
The lower courts I'M the state of New
York have hitherto held that on the dis
sofutiOnsof AfrEibonds of matrinony
complainantcould re-marry at viii but
the defendant was prohibited. And,
although the defendant might be re-
married III 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 sister Commonwealth
were disregarded. But tho Court of
Appeals has rendered a decision which
viii entirely change the construction
which the lower courts have put upon
the divorce laws of the state of New
York. 1t maintains the sovereign 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: Marker Won Voorish, after be-
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. Van
Voorhis died in 1879, and in 1880, in
the distribution of the estate, the ques-
ton of the legitimacy of Rose came up,
and the Supreme Court decided that, as
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. This
decision went up on exceptions to the
Court of Appeals and was reversed.
The court held that marriage recog-
nized by the laws of Connecticut was
valid, not only in New York, but every
where.
The decision relieves the defendant
in this state of the pains and penalties
of re-marriage if he decides to have the
act performed in Connecticut or Hi
nois. The decision does not declare
the law of this state null and void, when
applied to a defendant in divorce, who
re-marries in the limits of the state.
But the decision informs the Legislature
that the statute which makes bigamists
of such defendants as are divorced and
re-marry in this state, might as well be
repealed, for it can be made dead
letter at any time by a party appealing
to the laws of another state or seeking
protection where no such penal act
prevents rriage.-Zeocheste3' DEM
Oc7idt and Chronicle.