The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-09-06
GRANTED A DIVORCE.
Judge Huudlcy's Decision in a Cele-
brated Case.

DldAfu N"-Ns
FARAIVILLE. VA, Sept Especial
lion. George j. Hundey judge of the
Third Circuit opened his september
term here Sept. Isl Immediately after
the dinner recess. the counsel for plain
TIFF and defendant being present, he pro-
Ceeded 20 read from the bench a very
clear, able and exhaustive opinion on
which was based his decision OF case
In vacation. which has excited very gene
ral interest Don this section. The case
was fully argued and submitted al the
May term last of the Circuit Court VI
Cumberland. May T. Parker. plaintiff
against b. W. D. Parker defendant The
court held that The Ions continued open
and notorious recognition ot edcn Orher
as man and wife at Chicago, where they
lived aud an Cumberland. where me de-
PENDANT brought the plaintiff constituted
under the laws and decisions Of the h.sh-
est court of Illinois conclusive gresump-
ton of the previous parOi contract OF mar
rage which plaintiff c0u,tuded for ana
defendant denied. The learned judge
said while Purcell VS.. Purcell 4 IA. * NJ,
IA suit for almouy. without application
for divorcej went very far towards up
holding an Informal marriage he would
in Ibis case have great dimculty about
granting decree Of divorce, had the reia-
lion begun In Virginia. he was not pre-
pared 90 say, "a Virginia court woud de-
cree divorce In a case oi common Ia"
marriage" originating in Virginia. but IN
addition 10 the very strong circumstance
and evidence favorable to the plaintiff IN
this case. the rule thar the lex loci
contractu" governed. relieved him OF all
difficulty. and guided by the Illinois state
decisions. he would grant tne plaintiff
divorce a mensa co thoro, from the de-
PENDANT. and decree Der permanent aii-
mony of $40 year. counsel fees ana costs.
Coming then 90 the statutory authority.
given a Virginia judge over the estate OF
me delinquent husband which his court
had entered upon the exercise OK. when
arrested therein by contempt proceedings
AGAINST the receiver OF his court Toy the
Circuit Court of the city of Richmond 30
a suit subsequently, Instituted there against
the defendant Parker. he said. ut is win
profound regret that this court feels com
pelled 20 touch upon the conduct OF the
Federal Court at all for the Judge who
presided in the case in that court Is me
personal friend OF the Judge. who pre-
sides On this case. and for him ana Tor
his court. this court entertains me hlshe-l
regard and doubts NOS the perfect honesty
ana sincerity Of the acts of that tribunal
That court In response TO the decree OF
this court t0f lusI term made "a rule
against the plaintiff and the sheriff OF
Cumberland for contempt m lnieIlrI-
Ing with the property 0t defendant WHIST
in the hands OF Us receivers Tine FED
oraw court had transcript Of the record
of this suit before /. and knew th't the
defendant Parker had once. during the
session Of this court made deed % an
his personal property with intent To hin
der delay and dcfraud the plaintiff IN the
assertion of her clam FOR an equitable
settlement out of his estate, a claim or
the highest dignity. That court also
knew that this court although % tenn
porarily discharged its receiver bad not
reiinqulshed IT'S pr0uer control over MS
property but was proceeding at that very
time 10 carry out the provision OF our
statute where 70 declares that the court
may. at any time, make any order that
may bee proper tO preserve the estate or
the man so that 20 be forthcoming % meet
any decree which may bee made in the
suit. In order 20 preserve inc estate
this court thought proper 10 ehJoih lhe
man from disposing III 10. or encumoer-
inc n this bv the rule of comfy was just
as much an assertion OF the control or
his court over the property as II 10 had
held A. bv its receiver. The Federal
court seemed 20 take The view however
that because this court ala not actually
hold the property Cos lis receiver 10 was
liable 10 De taken by the first owner who
could Law hands on 90 and after comment
ing upon the evidence Of collision be-
tween jacques & Parker ga the Federal
suiO. 1T Is a sad day for courts Of
Justice and for justice itself when parties
colluding I'm the interest OF fraud are able
to play one court against another, 10 prae-
tlce a fraud upon the rightful jur.sdic-
tion Of one court and coniempiuously DEFY
rs orders under the protection of another
tribunal This is not the fault OF the
Federal court so much. al 10 is the vicious
friif of a system. constantly increasing
encroachment of the Federal power. upon
the Legitimate functions Of the States and
their tribunals The Increasing power u
Inc one and the waning authority Of the
other can but tend 10 feed the spirit n
encroachment Of that tribunal, which
has unlimited power al IFS Back II IS
Inc system that Is at fault not the judges
who preside over the courts