Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1899-12-01
GRAHAM DIVORCE CASE
Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Di-
vorce to Plaintiff.

The supreme court has passed Oh an
interesting point in the construction
OF the residence provision Of the di-
vOrce law. although the decision is not
SO vital as it would have been had not
the last legislature amended the resi-
dence provision OF the divorce law to
one year. The point passed upon is
or Importance. however, in any
divorces granted under the old law
that may hereafter he appealed to the
supreme court. The court holds that
the simple fact of bodily residence in
the state for a period Of ninety days.
which the old law provided rs the term
necessary to gain residence to begin
proceedings for divorce, is not sull-
Gent to comply with the requirement
or the law for a bona fide residence
but h Il in addition to this the plaintiff
must have a bona tide intention to re-
main and be 4 resident of the state in
order to get a divorce that will stick.
n when it a be shown that the
plaintiff in Il dlvOrce case has by word
or deed indicated or given Il reasonable
measure Of proof during the ninety
day period Of residence that he does
" ~ W Ill lSSl(lSlt VI lIl6
state and that his residence is solely
TOR the purpose of obtaining a divorce,
the divorce will not stick. under this
decision OF the court.
The case in question is that of Annie
Graham VS.. a. S. Graham. a suit for
,.-v0rce on the ground of non-maintcn-
ance brought in Richland county. The
plaintiff arrived in the state Il couple
nf VpO1'S Opn 1n1 v-'rG;, D;-l,%,, ,,:,a
days after her arrival brought a suit
for divorce. In the hearing Of the
case in the district court, evidence was
brought forward tending to prove that
the plaintiff had no intention of re-
naming a resident of the state and
was here for divorce purposes. The
trial court found that the plaintiff was
not an actual resident Of the state I'M
der the meaning OF the statute and
denied her Il divorce. Ibis decision the
supreme court upholds after a careful
examination of the record. The plain
,lH testified in the case that ut first
she did not intend to remain Il resident
OF he's state but afterward changed her
mind. The court finds. however. that
as she did not come to that decision
until a portion OF the brief eighty-nine
days she had resided here before an
plying for a separation had passed
away, that amount Of time must be
deducted from the statutory period.
II under this ruling the courts in the
state had not acquired jurisdiction at
the time she applied for a divorce.
The syllabus of the decision states
two interpretations OF the law in the
case. First, the word '~residence" in
the divorce law must be construed as
"domicile." Second. if n person
comes to- the state for the sole pur-
pose Of acquiring sufficient length Of
residence to begin an action for divorce
II intends to live elsewhere after
such divorce is granted, it is not such
a residence as will give the courts in
Inc state Jurisdiction of the case.
AS a great majority of the appli-
cants for divorce in the state under
the old law have left the state immedi-
ately upon securing their divorces, it
would appear that the most of the
divorces granted would be rather
shaky should the cases be appealed to
the supreme court under this decision,
since the fact of their immediate de-
parture would hardly argue in favor