, 1881-07-03
MADELINE AND AMALIE.

I AAAS'S ~ 1VkAH kASkA A4A0
a:'d tile Decree o: Sul1ity Ditto
| AnaaIic, Wife No. 2, Takes The Cake.
III lSG John George Roth, native OF Wdr-
te,nberg, emigrated to Chicago as the age Of -,
| and settled. engaging in the business Of Il
| butcher. His profits werc invested IN land, and
after t.;cnty- four ye4rs' work, hcjfound himself
! :. wealthy nun. In 1851 nc went back 20 Wiir
1c1nber; on u visit. returning tho next
Year. lie was wd,wer at the time,
! and. OH his way back. WAS accompanied by
| French girl. Madeline Npser. The acquaintance
t ,made 1 o The voye rpsnea into IN ~ attaSh %
| c!:o. Their life, however, WIS not It happy one,
I and i'll ls3G they both returned to Germany, she
gU.llg to her parents. aud de to Schondorf where
| he settled. Seven years later. Madeline came to
| Chicago and be=an proceedings for IL divorce.
Roth. '' lcarning Ut the suit came IN here set
| tlcu matters at!icabiy, aud took his wife buck
| tu Germany. His forgiveness, however. seems
only to have been apparcst, fur III ls1u he began
carl.d nllty. BECAUSE the consent Ut tho
klii1 ut Wur1cnb2TS Ia the marriage lal not
! bees: obtained, rs lie law required. \ decree
| riase void though :ladeljnc appeared and cum
Tested the suit. THE l:tw requiring the consent
OF the King before Il marriage could be per-
formed WAS passed i'll 1s.)S, but repealed bcforc
tie decree in the above suit was granted Soon
after the decree. Madeline, in consideration of
1lle payment Of $s..so gave reieasc TO her nus
afterwards. Roth married Amalie Stachle. who
! survived him. III March, 1874, Roth executed
the latter
A Sol;T OF Posr-NUPr1AL CONTRACT,
giving her ul his property on his death Oh con-
dtion of her paying SlUy1 tiorins to his heirs
Roth died in 1uly 1876. and on the aay Of his
death gave deed Of ail his property to Albert
Stachle, his wife's brother, in order to enahlc
! the latter to convert the Chicago property
into money. il desired without difficulty. About
two months after his death, Madeline was i'll
duced IL visit -A1nnlie. ana received from her
lf''5o marks On giving release of all her claims
1n0r nal H.
by Madeline. conveying all her interest iu kOth's
property to Amalie, ana apparently the two
parted the best OF friends.
Two Years later. however. Madeline, having
coule to Chicago, filed z bill here claiming that
the Wriite:nbcr.. decree Ut nullity und the sub
sequeut marriage OF Roth to AtnaIie were void,
and alleging that she. as widow Of Roth. was
eutitled tn onc-half bis real estate and au his
personal property. This case w:ls heard last
spring. The lawyers III the suit mltle Il trip to
Germany, wnere over l,U00 pages uf testimony
were taken. The hearing occupied several
Weeks anu the arguments we're unusually etub-
orate.
Judge Jameson's opinion Saturday WIS one Of
the most able and exhaustive thnt was ever
delivered in any Of the State Courts Of this
COUNTY, aud necessarily brief abstract cannot
do it Justice lie said, very truly that few cases
had ever bten before the courts involving more
complicated and interesting problems Of private
international law thAu the present one. The
most important p'nts were BY, what law
of Roth be determined: what law should govern
the decree Of nudity OF the tir=t marriage; what
GfteEt Should be gwen to the puSt-NupIiNi con-
tract; if valid. uccOrd1. to the law of Wiirtetu-
berg, how was 1t with regard 10
r.,1E ,v.c .,r 1,rtxo,c
a W. ''4--'oAos
anu "haL bearing dlu 1ne nauonallty OF the
pIr,ies n'tse VI tne c'ise:
a. ne nI:a luesuni ~, Goaserea MA5 as % "netner
tuG nalr!aae " 4Aotu VIII -hnueltue SosSF was
sAlii, A1iu ny whaL ~" lts icsnty was 10 pe de-
lesnlueu. ~ uch @Ats thafTicu tue5 were doml-
clieo ~ euc'9o- @atter a'scussnlt: III lenEIh.
,u1u WIN sfeAt aollits. tnG questions o. tue
!sA 4ocl contractors tue lex don;cllll' anu
me ia~ ol origin or MatFlty, 1ne
Iua2e held M that the law OF the don'clle gov
eflsu- IT, ane I1;1!a:e WA 10! III ct'httsentaon
~ lue !a"s VI lIiloi5 Au'l 9enct WIZ VALID. even
tnouRn tne consent or tue hsns VI NurteMuerS' "
VI "nlca p!ace notn WAS nhtise' WAS MOI ID |
tAineu. Inc want OF Inc Royal assent. thonsn
IL cfcated ~ ttotn an abso1ule tncapacilg 70
marry ~ violation OF Its terms. While uoultcl!eu
.there- dlu NOT create such al lica|ncity Ill lit
no'5 as to make null auu void bis Marriage |
with Madeline, 1t being valid by the place Ut [
Contract aud the place 81 tomlctle
The next question relAteI to the validity or
the decree oI nulity u this marriage, which |
decree was made III NnrtemotrG i'll 1o'J. III
order to make It valid. the Court pronouaclng
such Il decree must have had jurisdiction Ut
such cliiSs oi cases. ana OF tne persons con,
c-r'lel Inc law OF Tue nohisclle Eovcfn.'o anu
tlat the Court in Which the S case @ was "a denrd hai
IL