The herald., 1898-02-05
Loves Romance In the
Dreary Divorce Court
TO WIDEN FOURTH STREET
uoMpToN's MIsDEEDs TOLD OVER
ONCE MORE
Term Trial Jurors for Department Six.
Little Johnnie Burns Goes to
Whittier at Last

Mary ]. Youmans brought suit on De-
cember 2, 1897, against John Youmans
to have set aside her marriage with the
defendant. The case was assigned to
Department Six and Youmans demurred
to the complaint on statutory grounds.
The demurrer was yesterday overruled
by the court and the case will now have
to be tried on its merits. II discloses a
strange state of affairs.
Mary ]. Youmans, or Stevens, as she
was called prior to the 26th of october,
1897, eloped with the man on that date
and entered into an agreement of mar
riage with him at Tia Juana, Mexico.
The marriage was not according to the
laws of the republic, but they assumed
marital relations, nevertheless. About
fifteen days before this alleged wedding
Youmans had been divorced from for
mer wife, which under the new law pre-
vented him from entering into another
marital union within one year. But
such a prohibitory condition of affairs
was not calculated to stop man like
Youmans when Mary J. Stevens was
at stake.
He therefore, according to her story,
represented himself as a single man and
pushed his suit with such fervor that
she listened to his Establishments, fol-
lowed him to California's Gretna Green,
where the simulacre of a wedding cere-
mony was gone through. The couple
then returned to Los Angeles, and it
was only on November 29th when YOU
mans left his Mary for good and all,
that she awoke from the dream of love,
realizing that he had fooled her. 1t was
then that she hunted UP Major J. A.
Donnell with her tale of woe and no
time was lost in insttuting proceedings
to legally cancel a contract illegally en-
tered into on the defendants part. The
lady also applied for permission to re-
sume the name by which she was form
erly known.
In overruling the demurrer Judge AL
len says, after referring to sections 81
and 63 Of the Civil Code, as amended,
which covers the case in point:
From the averments of the complaint,
which are by the demurrer admitted.
the defendant, at the date of such al
legged marriage in the republic Of Mex
leo, had a wife living. from whom he had
been divorced in the state Of California
within one year prior to the date of such
marriage; and, further, the marriage
sought to be entered into in the republic
Of Mexico was invalid by the laws Of
that country. It Is unnecessary, in this
case, from these averments, to deter
mine what would be the effect Of mar
riage valid by the laws of the country
where entered into, under these circum-
stances. Sufficient it is to say that the
complaint shows that no marriage ever
took place according to the laws, either
Of the domicile or outside Of this state,
valid by the laws of such foreign juris-
diction. The section 81, above referred
to, can certainly admit of but one con-
struction, and that is, that parties DOM
iciled in this state, contracting a mar
riage within this state within a year
from the annulment or dissolution of a
former marriage. are entitled to an an
nulment of such subsequent marriage
by competent tribunal and no reason
is suggested why the same rule should
not apply where the attempt to enter
into the marriage relation is made out
side Of the state and not In conformity
to the jurisdiction where such agree
ment to marry is made. This subse-
quent marriage is therefore voidable
from the beginning. at the election of
either party; and especially is it true of
the plaintiff in this case, upon whom
fraud is admitted to have been perpe-
trated to induce her to enter into such
relation