The evening times., 1899-03-06
UNIFORM DIVORCE LAWS.
Test Case to Be Argued Before I'll
Supreme COurt.

Test Case to BE Argued Before the
Supreme Court.
New York, March 6.-Believng in the
urgent need of revised and universal di-
vorce laws throughout all States, two at
torneys of this city will plead next week
in the United States Supreme Court, at
Washington, on case that has been car
ried from the surrogate's court of Kings
county. The legal battle that II be waged
promises TO make test case Of an article
in the Federal Constitution which recog-
niZes in each State "the public acts, rec
ords and judicial proceedings of every
other State Upon this clause will be
founded the argument for uniform divorce
laws.
The case was taken to the Supreme Court
by writ of error to the lower court. Mrs.
Maud E. kimble, of Brooklyn, presented
petition through her attorneys, former
Judge Henry w. Scott and Walgraye Har-
lock, in December, 1896. alleging that she
was the widow of Edward G. Kimble of
Brooklyn, who died intestate, and as such
was entitled to a share in his estate. The
contention hung on the validity of decree
of divorce obtained in Dakota against
former husband The divorce was held to
be invalid and the second marriage not
binding. Although the divorce proceed
ngs in North Dakota were admitted, the
plaintiff was held not to be lawfully mar
ried to Edward C. Kmble.
In Mrs. Kimble's case present unsettled
conditions are said to have caused the
courts dissolution of her marriage tie.
Each State and each Territory has laws of
its own. differing widely in many instances
from those of its neghbors. The Sioux
Falls divorce colony was, the talk of the
civilized. world until conditions were
changed by better laws North Dakota and
Oklahoma are now Meccas of those who
find the laws of their own States inconven-
lent.
While protecting the interests OF their
client, Messrs. Scott and Harlock have pre-
pared a case which in its language involves
the rule followed n.New York which dis
regards divorces in every State in the
Union where personal service or voluntary
appearance is not required. A uniform rule
is asked for which will abolish the lax
methods of some States as compared with
the stringent systems in others The ex-
ecutfve of New York, it is said, may call
a defendant a bigamist, but can one be a
! bigamist whom Massachusetts or North Da
kota had released from a former marriage?
Such conflicts as those appearing in the
present case will continue unabated until
a like system of laws is enacted.
Former Judge Henry W. Scott said yes
terday: The question that We are carry
ing 10 higher court is whether the courts
/ of another State can retry the findings on
recitals OF fact in the decree of divorce
upon the question OF the residence of the
plaintiff. Wherein does the right of States
reside to retry questions found in the
courts of sister States and to declare their
judgments null and void?
1T seems proper that there should be a
fixed and uniform rule on this subject and
the social conditions OF the country would
/ be amelorated. much misery and anguish
would be averted. The laws of the different
States are SO utterly in conflict with each
other as often 10 leave citizen in grav>
doubt as TO whether he is a married man
with all the responsibilities attached there
10 or a single man, enabled under the law
to repudiate a woman who may in good
faith nave joined him in marriage.
In this condition of affairs one may be
married in given State. divorced In an
other, and a bigamst in another. all upon
exactly the same state OF facts and arising
from the same transaction. Ii is contrary
10 the public policy of the country and
should not be tolerated in the United States