Omaha daily bee., 1897-11-24
DIVORCES AS GOOD AS ANY
Defense Of the Article Put Up in South
Dakota.
NO DISCOUNT ON THE DEGREES GRANTED
"roubie Comes In by Many Parties
ignoring the Law and Practice
ing Fraud and Deception
on the Courts.

In reply to the assertions Of New York
papers that Dako5l divorces are invalid In
several OF the states the various judges OF
the circuit courts of the state have explained
why this Is true in certain cases. The valid
dty Of Dakota divorce, like that of a d.
vorce obtained In any other state, depends
Upon tho honesty of the purity seeking relief.
II fraud Is used; II witnesses perjure them
selves; II false testimony is given and forged
papers presented, OF course any state would
nullify such divorce. But there is no
place in the union where the courts could
act quicker In undoing such wrong aDi
Furnishing the parties thereto than right here
On South Dakota.
The validity of divorces obtained in South
Dakota has never been questioned where
the phintiff has acted in good faith. All the
states Of the union recognize the validity of
South Dakota DEGREES wnere the defendant
has been served with process and where an
appearance has been made. A divorce OBJ
tained by default is oontestable at any time
even in this state where 1t Is shown that
the allegations were untrue or that the
Jlaintif knew of the whereabouts of the de-
iendant. Judge Smith of the first circuit re-
Gently set aide a divorce which was OBJ
taine1 by forged acknowledgment of process
and has issued a warrant for the arrest OF
tho party, but he has gone to Canada. Judge
Smith says there is no oluse for alarm over
divorces procured In good faith here. II
tho parties to a divorce practice deception,
rohlch Is very rare, and the validity of the
decree was contested in another state, 1t
would undoubtedly be set aside. Judge Jones
of the second circuit confirms the state
ment of Judge Smith; as also does Judge
Andrews OF the fifth circuit and Judge Cafy
of the sixth. New York courts have repeat
edly affirmed the validity of South Dakota
decrees properly obtained. 1t was upon the
advice of learned New York lawyers that
Mrs. YZanga, Mrs. Minton Mrs. Blaine, Mrs.
DE Steurs and hundred others came to
South Dakota for relief; and none of these
decrees have ever been contested, because
process was served and appearance made in
every case.
SERVICE A NECESSITY.
The common error made by people seeking
G divorce here is that it may be obtained
with little no effort and without the
formallty of notifying the recreant spouse,
and it is no exaggeration to say that 25 per
cent Of those who come here attempt to i'm
pose upon their attorneys in presenting their
cases. which only adds 10 their compllca-
tiCns. In the absence of service OF process
the law provides a line of procedure in de-
fault but very few attorneys like to take
such case. and the judges take plenty OF
time for developments before granting de-
cree. When this Is done, however, they not
OILY Stanu ready Dut are ANXIOUS TO set
aside a decree OF this kind upon a showing
OF fraud or false testimony, In no case does
honesty Gay as well as in obtaining a South
Daketa divorce.
There is now pendng before the court OF
GDueals in New York a case which involves
the legality of North Dakota divorce, The
case. unmportant in itself, is extremely I'M
Dortant involving the legality of divorce
secured in one state, before the courts OF
another. and as involving the legitimacy of
,r,s Il
name OF pecole who have been divorced In
western states cnd remarked in New York
and other kindred matters.
In this case wife left New York and
went to North Dakota, where, after a resi-
dence of three months, she secured divorce.
Notice was served on the defendant by pub
llcation. 1t does not appear even that he had
actual notice shat tho application had been
made and he was represented neither per-
sooally nor by attorney at the hearing. After
the divorce was granted the plaintiff re-
turned to New York and remarked separat-
ing from her second husband in six months
After his death she claimed the Widows
share of the estate. The Brooklyn surrogate,
before whom the will was proDated, ruled
that she was not the lawful widow of the
deceased. This ruling affirmed by the
appellate division of the supreme court and
is now pending before the court of appeols.
The decision in the supremen court was
based on the ground that while the divorce
might be legal and binding In North Dakota
and while remarriage there might be rec
ogniZed by the courts of other states the
divorce was not binding In New York and
her marriage was therefore null and void
The decision of the court of appeals will
be awaited with much interest as securing
the judgment of high tribunal on a ques-
tion which affects many hundreds OF people
and probably many millions OF dollars The
old theory was that divorce secured in one
state was good in every other state just as
a marriage is generally recognized to be.
the divorce colonies of the west. however,
involving as they do 80 much deception, bad
faith, and often so much injustice, have Sc
riousy tempted the courts to abandon this
old ruling.