The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-05-08
George w. Slmpkins Got a Divorce
From One Of Them Through
Default.
Before tho Ink Was Dry on tho
Decree He Married tho
Othor.
The supreme Court Decides That the Ia
jured Woman Must have Chance
Co Fight the Case

wives The title Of the case IL George ".
| Simpkins, respondent versus Alice J.
Sim kins. appellant. simpkins began an
action for divorce Msroh p. 1892, In Deer
Lodge county. Hgainst defendant. who was
At the time in la osss. Wis. The grounds
on which divorce Was asked we're dsssrtion.
Service Of summons was by publ cation. by
mailing COPY 70 Mrs. simpkins. whose
counsel, ii. Il. Whitohill. filed demurrer,
which was owe ruled Aag. IS. Default
was entered Aug. II and Judgment rem
dersd granting Sim kins divorce the next
day. The same day Simpkins married an
other woman. On Sept. % a motion was
made to sol aside the judgment OF divorces
and allow Mira. simpkins 20 defend the
action. On that motion an answer waa
rendered which apparently pleaded a good
defense against the action for divorce. Inc
motion was denied by the lower court and
from this MS. simpkins appealed.
From the history Of the case IL appears
that on receipt of the summons Mrs
Sim kins engaged W. y. Burroughs. Of La
Crosse, as counsel. lie afterwards wrote
to II. X. Whitshill at Deer Lodge 10 ap-
pear for her a. local alto ney. In the cor
rsspondenee between the two lawyers Bur
rouRhs informed Whitshill Of The facts
necessary % constitute an answer 90 ths
complaint aud suggested II Sim kins would
paw the DSer Lodge attorney his fes and
give his wife $1,000 she would let him 90
subsequently. after consulting with his
client Bu Tou chs " OTIS that she could not
accept 1000 a. she had no means of her
own and had two children, aged II and 10
20 al haN aha a A.,
sst tbs divorce, but that if it was to be
granted shs would accept 5000 and the
paTmsnt OF Whitehilfs fees. and the fur
Their sum Of S25 per month TO the supp0
Of her l7yeAr-old daughter until the latter
came Of hgs. To this Whitshill replied
that he had with difficulty gotten SimpkIrs
10 agree TO pay his wife $1,000 without
further alimony. and 10 give him 500 az
his fee; aud that unless she would accept
the offer hs would withdraw from the case.
In reply 10 this Burroughs tslsRrAphed that
Mrs Sim kins would not accept, but that
Whitehall should go on With the case.
Whitehill howevs refused to Ole the an
sver and Bufroughs' letters urging him to
go on we're returned unopsned. While
these letters We being sent backward and
forward tbs decree Was granted by default.
and Simpkins married again.
The contention of Mrs. sim pkins was that
any neglect on her part Ia allowing aefaut
Was eIcussble. The supreme court says it
10 evident she was nnxious 10 defend the
action This was shown by her coming
/. 40 miles to havs tie decree SET aside
he coart fu theT says Whtehill never in
formed her he had Withdrawn from the case
He simply told he be would do 90 unless
she accepted certain terms. which be was
promptly informed by telegraph she would
not do. IL Whitehill had read the subss-
quent lette 4 Of Bur. ouRhs. instead OF re-
turning them unopened, he would have
slusrsd thai be was authorized to make ths
offer TO SiWpkins attoraey, and the non
concurrence IN which proposition By her,
was the cause of MhitahilPs threatened
withdrawal. Then Whitehill. or any
other fair attorney." says the supreme
court III he still persisted in Withdrawing
from the case would have notified defend
ant. and put her IN position not to suffer a
default by has withdrawal. That Is 10 say,
this is what defendant. sitting IN her home
az La Crosse. l,2UO miles from the court,
had eason 30 believe; aud so having reason
10 believe she wac not negligent In acting
AS II she so telisved. We can see no negll-
gence Whatever Of defendant which was
not absolutely eXousable.
"Under ell these facts Of the case We c~o
81 o inion that u would be reprOach
upon tue administration OF the law TO allow
a l. Judgment to stRRd. Divorce laws ani |
procedure N some jurisdictions are often
subject of adverse criticism. II such a /
proot ding 80 the one before Us 10 allowed /
10 pass with approval. sucs criticism would |
be wholly just.
IT ia urged that the merits Of the mo- /
tiun are affected bv the TACT that Simpklns /
las remarked since the rendering OF the I
divorce judgment. Yes. p4aiutiff has re-
married. uoooT Ing % the recori, aud he /
did this before the ink was DRY upon the /
judgment divorclnR him by defau from /
The woman who mad been his VIE Tor I
I'm. MI. ltu.N 49, Ntaa s~NsH
Gren and AIRED tLeui 10 near their IN iO--
itT, anu who had X pt the home and hearth
Tor him AMI bis children during ali these
yeas. Aud this judgment, obtained
without a heR ing on the uart Of defend
ant. Was upon a complaint not charging
crueltf or bdultefy or any OF the grAVeT
ohenses against she marriuge contract. but
u. on Il complaint alleging desertion only.
and deGertiOn after twenty years Of
married life, a charge by plaintiff upon the
truth OF which all the circumstances Of this
case throw the RrAvest suspicion.
''Iu this connection 10 IL appropriate 20
notice tue verified answer which was ten
dersd With the motion. The answer not
only denies the allegation OF desortion. but
10 emphAtioElly denies that Simpkina 10
= sident OF Montana. and 10 sets % facts.
which n true, shows that he is a resident
OF la Crosse. 10 alleges that be was a rail
road conductor, and that he was employed
IA dihe ent places and that after having
had many homes az divers times. they flu
ally sett. ed IN this home IN La Crosse; that
be always ontei 10 40 such, and that he
spoke OF - AZ such Ia the letters which b.
wrote 90 her and his children; that he wrote
10 them "a AhectionAte terms. and visited
them up TO u shurttime before commenc-
ing this suit, and up 20 that time sent
money ana presents and that never did he
.ntimate his claim OF defendants alleged
iessrtiou, or % HE Intention 60 claim a
residence in Montana.
NOW. under all these circumstances for
plaintiff % claim that his remarriARs. in
his hot and indecent haste Il pertinent
lpon this rnotian, Is a sorry sort Of reply
10 the motion Of defendant set.iug
1p the litiable facts disclosed bV
his record. Nor "a tho situation
The person whom plnintiu yurported 90
marry on Aug n. a conside alton that can
~ aside tho rights OF Airs Simukins
Such condiiion is not OF hrs. simpkins' ere
alton. or Ees fault.
The order denY iug the motion 90 open
he default ~ reversed. aud the case IL re
nanIed with directions 80 the district
SQUIRT 90 grant the anllleation and 90 set
lside the judgment. and allow defendant 10
bic her ansWer. and make defense"
he court also made an order affirming
Judgment IN the case Of A. j Selignan,
apI ellanI Va the Standard Pub ishinc
COMPANY. respondent IL wac an action Tor
iamages Ia which a We diet aud Judgment
Eers for defendant in the eourt below. lac
plaintiff appealed from she Judgment aud
rom the orde denying a new tls. Here
lufore. on motion for good cause shown.
he record on appeal ftom tho osdsr deny
nR neu trial vas stricken cot. 1his