The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-11-17
ssaARE DIVORCES
a23
Obtained il Georgia Valid In
South Carolina.
--
AN INTERESTING CASE
Tried and Decided in a Lexington couu.
ty Court. William Westmorelaud,
Who Was Divorced in Georgia,
Convicted Of Adultery by
AN INTERESTING CASE
a Petit Jury.

y - OtSo VI UNUSUALLY interest," wax
tried and decided in the court Of gen.
eral session at Lexington on Thurs,
day. The Columbia State says the
final decision Of the supreme court liz
the case may AFT ct the validity OF
several marriages In South Carolina,
where or the other parties to 1t
obtained q divorce in the State OF
Georgia.
In 1876 William Westmorcland, a
we'll TODD merchant, farmer and post.
master at Samaria, In this county
married Miss Malsey Duffy, also OF
this county. Seven children were the
result of the union.
In 1895 he applied to the superior
court CT Augusta, Ca, for q q vorce
on the ground that in 1892 his wife,
Malsey WestmOreland, had deserted
him and was still DESERVING him. A
copy Of his petition was se,ysd upon
his wife, who did not oppose the pro.
ceedings.
On the fading of the jury In tue di.
vOrce proceedings, Judge E. FL. Gal.
loway, judge Of the superior court OF
Richmond county, Georgia, ordered
and decreed, that the said William
Westmoreland and the said Malsey
Westmoreland be, and they are here
by, totally divorced from each other"
And it was ordered that they each
be privileged to marry again without
any restraint imposed by their said
marriage to each other"
Two years after this decree was
granted William Westnoreland mar.
ried again and went to housekeeping
with his bride, nee Miss Adora Bur.
CESS, in the community Of lis South
Carolina home. Threc children are
the result Of this second marriage.
And now come the neighhois OF that
vicinity, in which Westmoreland has
lived with his second wife for six
years, and indict him for a~dulterously
living with herl His trial today result.
ed in a verdict Of guilty. and Judge
Gage imposed a sentence on West
moreland Of four months on the chain
gang, or pay a fine OF 84OO. The result
of this verdict Is far reaching, and not
only aft cts Westmoreland himself
and his second wife, but practically
stigmatizes the children OF this sec
ond marriage as tastards.
The supreme court will have sew
eral very interesting questions to set
tile In this. case.
This Is the first time, on the Grim
4 tslf lCt q Nc Ulllt,a case OF I'll
kind has arisen, and for that reason
IL will be well to.giva the main lega
features Of the proceedings, a. the ii
nal status of the cBse will establish
q. precedent, and the declaration O
the supreme court OF Stuth Carolins
will lay down the law more clearly
with reference to this matter Of com
tty between the States and jurisdic.
tion Of the person.
AS q defense TO the charge egains,
him Westmoreland, through his ~
sci, offered the decree Of divorce
granted him by the superior court
OF Augusta, separating him from hi,
tlfst wife and also the marriage license
he obtained from the ordinary court
of Augusta and the marriage certih
cate OF the justice Of peace who
uhited him IN the holy bon6s OF
matrimony to Miss Adoya Burgess,
his Sec I'd wife.
The States position was that the
divorce Westuloreiand obtained IL
Georgia was no good FOR tile reason, 81
the solicitor contendad, that tho
courts Of Georgia had 10 Jurisdiction
over Westmoreland, az ne was rot s
Citizen OF Georgia, but Of South Caro-.
nna. And to su~bStantiale this con.
tention evidence was introduced tt
show that Observation-Disclosures claim tC
citizenship as a Georgsan only went
to the extent Of his renting o room If
Augusta, which he only occasionally
occupied, ~ or twice a month
when he would make u flying visit tt
Augusta, and that he had never a
bandoned his South Carolina citizen
ship; that q temporary absence from
the State does not change the rosi
denoe or domicle OF o person.
There was o good deal Of eyidenct
introduced tending TO prove tina
Westmoreland never permanontl,
abandoned or intended to abondol
his South Carolina residence am
therefore, could not be said to hay,
been q citizen of Augusta. The prin
cipal fight In the case was on tn,
point of Jurisdiction and whether O
not the Judgment Of a foreign cour
was binding upon the court Of trla
now sitting on the case. On thes,
points Judge Gage charged the jur,
In substance as follows:
did the defendant Westmorelant
90 to Georgia with an honest purpose
an !. nest heart, 10 make Georgi;
his me, to acquire q residence IL
Georgia, to be q Georgian? If 1T
did. and while a resident there, Geor
gia gave him a divorce, then the di
yorce binds and ought to protect hin
In this prosecution; but the law Is thu
essence Of common sense and justice
1t is net a trick. For q man to &C
quiYe q residence in q place he mus
not only put his body there for /
time, but he must have the purpose
In his heart to have that place as hi,
residence. Did the defendant go tt
Georgia with o honest purpose tt
make his home in Georgia and having
Georgia for his residence? If he die
then the court had jurisdiction OF hiE
cause. But il he went TO Georgia fol
q temporary purpose, for no purpose
to acquire o residence there, but t(
get 8 divorce there and come back
into South Carolina claiming q divor.
ce, then the court OF Georgia nevcl
had Jurisdiction Of the cause. If he
acquired a residence In South Caro-.
lima a temporary change OF 1t would
- $3.50