The San Francisco call., 1905-05-16
DECREE
DOES NOT HOLD
California Divorce Invali-
dated by Illinois Verdict
in Favor of Mrs. Harding
SUPREME COURT RULING
Attempt of Capitalist to
Secure Separation in San
Diego Is Finally Defeated
Special Dispatch to The Call


CALL BUREAU, POST BUILDING,
WASHINGTON, Mny 15.-The United
states Supreme Court to-day reversed
the decision of the Supreme Court Of
California In the George r. Harding
divorce proceedings, instituted several
years aso I'm the courts of Illinois and
afterward transferred by a counter
complaint to the courts of San Diego
County. The ruling, In effect. upholds
the decree granted Mrs. Harding by the
Illinois court.
Some time in 1890 Mrs. Adelaide NJ.
Harding sued George F. Harding. now
a resident of San Diego, for divorce.
asking the custody of her children and
$500 per year as alimony. Harding
is said to be very wealthy man.
The couple were married in Peoria,
ILL., in the early sixties. Mrs. Harding
alleges that as they grew older her
husband neglected her and went to
live in California after a family dis
ruption.
A decision was rendered in the H.
linois courts in the wife's favor in
1897. One month later Harding filed
in the Superior Court Of San Diego
County a complaint as bar to his
wife's allegations, and represented
that she had refused to live with him
without just cause. He presented nu-
merous technicalities in support of his
claims
The United States Supreme Courts
decision dwelIs upon certain pecuIiari-
ties of the divorce laws of the two
States, and, In substance, supports the
claims of Mrs. Harding In that the
Stnte of California never was the
domlcile of the plaintiff, and therefore
the courts of California had no jurls-
dictiOn.
Harding" says the decision. does
not claim to have made any change of
residence until such a time as he NOV
ed to house in San Diego and lived
with his sister. WHO acted as house
Keeper; and he was without a wife in
California There Is no evidence to
show that ary place other than Illinois
was the donnic!le of Mrs. Harding"
I'VE are of the opinion said Jus
tice White, that the final decree en-
tered in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. in legal effect estab-
fishes that the separation then exist
| ing and which began contemporan-
| eously with the filing of the bill in the
case in February. 1890, was lawful, and
| therefore couclusively operated to pre-
| vent. the same separation from consti-
tuting a willful desertiop by the wife
| of the husband From these conclu-
| sions it necessarily follows that the
issues presented il this action for di-
| vorce were 5fdenticai1,vithl that Adecided
| IN - the uit-sin- illinois for separate
| maintenance. 1t follows that the Su-
| preme Court of California, in affirm-
ing the divorce, failed to give to TIL,
/ decree of the Illinois vourt the dus
faith and credit to which 1t was en-
/ titled, and therefore violated the con.
stitutions of the United States"
The Judgment of the California cour,
was therefore reversed and the case
renamed for further proceedings
When the case was argued Harding
| who is a lawyer, appeared in his owr
/ behalf while his son. also an attor-
i ney, appeared for his mother. Neithe,
participated Ill the argument. how
| ever.