Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-02-16
Divorce Laws mix Simon Davis'>
Wives.


One of the extraordinary complica-
tons always apt to rise under the com
pick and conflicting divorce laws ofthe
different States, to which the Herald
has frequently called attention, was
made apparent in the Court of Com
mon Pleas yesterday.
Two of Simon DAY ISIS wives sat in the
court room before Judge Pryor; one of
them, Carrie Guran Davis, seeking the
annulment of her marriage to man
from whom the other, Esther Leah
Davis, had just obtained q decree OF
absolute divorce in the Supreme Court.
Davis had obtained an absolute di-
vorce from Esther before marrying Car
RE. but the decree was granted by 4
Massachusetts court, the summons hay
ing been se.ved by publication, and the
tribunal of New York refused to recog-
nize it.
Judge Barrett, of the Supreme Court,
in gronting the divorce to Esther,
held that Davis's Massachusetts, divorce
was void. Esther's suit was based
upon Davis's relations with Carrie. Car
rie's suit depended upon the fact that
Esther was still his wife at the time he
again assumed matrimonial relations.
Davis is an elderly man. He was a
widower when he was married to
Esther in April, 1884 He left her to
90 to Holyoke, and he obtained a di-
vorce on the ground of desertion. She
only heard of the decree some time af-
terward. His marriage to Carrie Gu
ran took place at the City Hall on June
% last. They intended to have re-
ligious ceremony, but his plans were in
terferred with by his arrest in proceed
ings instituted by Esther.
Carries wedding trip was suddenly
ended, and she has never seen Davis's
home Mt Holyolle. Esther got an
award of $l5 q week alimony from
Judge Barrett.
The most sensational evidence given
before Judge Pryor yesterday was that
of George Rich, the husband Of one of
Davis's daughters by his first marriage.
He swore that Davis's Massachusetts,
divorce had been obtained through per-
jury.
Davis told him that he wished to
prevent the possibility of having his
second wife, Esther, get any of his
money when he died, as she was bound
to do unless he secured a divorce.
At the request of his fatherin-law he
had testified on the trial at Springfield,
Mass. that he had come to that State
to try to induce his wife's stepmother to
Join her husband in Massachu-
sets, her refusal having constituted
the alleged abandonment.
As a matter of fact he had not come to
New York and had never spoken to her on
the subject.
He had only confessed that he had commit
tod perjury when he found that his con-
science troubled him so that he could not
sleep. He was sure that all of the testimony
submitted on behalf of his father-in-law was
perjury.
Davis, he said, had left Esther one day with
the remark that if she did not get out Of the
house he would break her neck. He had
never returned to her.
Mrs Esther Davis testified that she had
never been in Massachusetts, and had had no
one to protect her rights during the trial OF
her husbands suit
Judge Pryor when the case was closed said
he considered the complications extraOrdi-
nary. He was asked to pronounce the judg-
ment of a sister State void because the sum-
mons had been served by publication, al
though in this action the summons was also
served by publication and Davis did not ap-
pear to defend. This condition Of affairs
should call the public attention to the divorce
laws Of this State.
He reserved his decision, saying he would
examine the questions inyolyed.-Ne,c York
Herald.