Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1893-03-07
DAVIS, DlL EN- MA,

Those who are urging the necessity of
uniformity in the divorce laws of the dff-
ferent States are furnished with striking
illustration of the evils they wish to do
away with in case which has Just been
decided in New York.
In 1884 Simon Davis, then q widower,
married Father Leah Davis, q widow, in
the State of New York After quarreling
enough Mr.. Davis abandoned Mrs. Davis
aud their New York home. He went to
Holyoke, Massachusetts,, and established
there dry goods store. After Mr.. Davis
had made Holyoke his residence, he in
stituted suit for divorce, alleging de-
sertion on the part of his wife and serving
notice upon her by a newspaper pubiica-
ton. This was sufficient under the Massa-
chusetts law. Mr.. Davis afterwsrd re-
turned to New York city and there mar
ried Miss Carrie Gunan. The ceremony
was performed by properly authorized
officer at the city hall. The last wife, Mrs.
Carrie Davis, nee Gonau, applied in the
New York court of common pleas, before
Judge Roger A. Pryor, for the annulment
of her marriage with Simon Davis. In
this suit, the marriage ceremony having
been performed in New York, motto, by
publication was sufficient. She alleged
that the Massachusetts, proceeding by
which Mr.. Davis had been disjoined from
his previous wife, Esther Leah Davis, was
void, and, therefore, that her marriage
with him-whlch might have been valid in
Observation-Disclosures void in New York. It
appears that, in addition to the troubles of
Mr.. Davis from his latest marriage and
the suit for its aunulment, his previous
wife had entered criminal complaint
against him for bigamy.
Judge Pryor decided that the latest
marriage should be annulled. His decree
contained the following:
By the law of Massachusetts, its court
| had jurisdiction of the defendant (Mrs.
Esther Leah Davis) in the divorce suit, and
the decree of divorce Is valid and CON-
| elusive. And yet I am to declare this
| Massachusetts judgment q nullity. And
why? Because the jurisdiction of the
Massachusetts court rests solely on q con-
| structive service of process by pubhca-
ton, and By the law of New York such
| service is of no avail. But such con-
structivs service of process is the only
foundation of the Jurisdiction of this court
in the present case; yet by tho law of New
York such service gives jurisdiction to its
courts. md the Judgment am to render
is not only valid but of so trAnscendent
an efficiency as to impeach records and
cancel the judicial proceedings of another
state. In reason such service should be
sufficient in both States or In neither.
| Equally anomalous will be the effect of
the Judgment of this court on the relations
and rights of the parties. In Massachu-
| setts not the former spouse, but this plain
If Is the lawful wife of the defendant,
1 while in New York the former spouse Is
still the wife of the defendant and his con-
nection with the plaintiff crime. Indeed,
relying on the nullity of the Massachusetts,
decree, the former wife has instituted here
an action for divorce from tho defendant
on the allegation that his marriage with
this defendant is an adulterous association.
The executive of New York may demand
from Massachusetts the vindtcation of the
defendant as bigamist, but can he be 9
| bigamist whom Massachusetts, had released
from the former marriagea
A mixture indeed. Such q mess ough,
to be impossible 10 country supposed t.
be civilized.