The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-11-15
AN TNTE2,}sESTING GASP.
Tried and Decided iu Lexington couu'
e Petit Jury.

A csse OF urusually interest "as
tried and decided in the c,u1o OF gen,
ersl session at Lexington on Thurs
dsy. The Columbia State says TIE
final decision Ct the supreme court n
the case nsy af ca the validity o.
several marriages n South Carolina,
where one or the other paroles to 1t
obtained q divorce in the State O.
Georgia.
In 1875 William Westmorelano, q
well to-dc merchant, farmer arc 5s0-
master at Sauarls, in this county.
married Miss Malsey Duffy, also G!
this county. Seven children were the
result Of the union.
InlSs6 be applied to the superior
court Ct Augusta, Ca, :or a divorce
on the ground that in 1892 bis wife,
Mslsey WestmorelsnG, had deserted
him and vas still desertiog him. a
CODY OF bis petition was served upon
his wife, who did not oppose the pro-
cesdiugs.
On the finding OF the jury in the dl,
vorce proceedings, Judge E. d. Cal.
lowsy, judge OF the superior court OF
Richmond county, Georgia, orcered
and decreed, that the said William
Westmoreland and the said Malsssy
Westmoreland be, and they are here.
BY, totally divorced from each other" !"
And 1t was ordered that they each
be privileged to marry again without
sny restraint imposed by their saio
marriage to each othe1."
Two years after this decree WAS
granted William Westnoreiano mar
lied again ane went to housekeeping
with his bride, zee Miss Acora Bur
CESS, in the community CT lis Souah
Carolina home. Tn-ee children are
the result OF this second naz1iegs.
And now come the neigh5ors OF tnat
vicinity, in which Wes. norslana has
lived with his second vile tor six
wears, and inGic9 him fCr sdu.ts-ously
living with her! His 5-ia; TODAY result
ed in verdict o. guilty, aod Judge
Gage in posed sentence on West
roreland Of four manths 90 5he chain
gang, or pay 8 fine OF s40o. The result
Of this verdict is far reachirg; AID not
only 6 # cts Wsstmocelaoo himself,
and his second vile, but practically
stigmstizss the children Of this sec
end marriage as tastaEas.
The supreme court will have sev.
eral very interesting q .estiGlS to set.
tie In this case.
This is the 6rSt tine, OF the cIl@r-
1sls;Ce cttie tCul;t, case OF sa
kind has arisen, and fcc Chst reason
it will be well to gv5 the Icain legal
features Of tbs proceedings, as the d
nal status OF tee csse Will establish
8 precedent, sn5 the cecla-aticn OF
the supreme court OF S.u b Carolina
will lay down tie law oofs c!easly
with reference to this Eat.er OF COZ
ity between the States an6 !ur:so:c,
tioo Of the person.
As a defense 90 The charge as23cst
him Westmo-slsnc, through his couu
sci, offered the decree OF divorce
granted him by the superior court
OF Augusta, separating him troHn his
first wife and also the marriage license
he obtained from t.he ordinary c0uSt
OF Augusta and the marriage cers'h.
cate OF the justice O. peace who
united him in the holy bonds OF
nstrinony to Miss Aoora Burgess,
his second wife.
The States position was that the
diyoyce Wess1orelan6 obtained il
Georgia was 10 good for the reason, as
the sclicttor conEsEdad, thai tie
courts Of Georgia asd 70 jurisdiction
over Westmoreiard, as ne vas co0 q
citizen OF Georgia, but O. South Care.
Ina. And to substsnriavs this con-
tention evidence was introduced 20
show that Wsstn0teland's claim 20
citizenship as Gsorgs.n only went
to the extent OF his rsn5iEg room in
Augusta, which be only occasionally
occupied, once or twice a month,
when be would make flying visit to
Augusta, and that he bad never a.
bandoned his South Carolina citizen,
ship; that q temporary absence from
the State does not change the rosl
dence or domicle Of person.
There wss good deal OF evidence
introduced tending to prove that
Westnoreland never permanently
abandoned or intended to abondon
his South Carolina residence and
therefore, could not be said to have
been citizen OF Augusta. The prin-
cipal fight in the case was on the
point Of jurisdiction and whether or
not the Judgment OF q foreign court
vas binding upon the ccurt Of trial
now sitting on the case. On these
points Judge Gage charged the jury
In substa1 CO as follows:
did the detec dant Westmoreiand
90 to Georgia with an honest purpose,
81 honest heart, TO make Georgia
bis home, to acquire a residence in
Georgia, to be a Georgian? Il he
did. and while q resident there, Geor
gia gave him diyorce, then the di-
Yorcs binds and ought to protect him
in this prosecution; tut she law is the
essence Of common ssrse and justice,
it IS net a trick. For nan to &c
o2ire residence il place he must
not only put lis bocy there for
time, but be must have tee purpose
in bis heart to have that place as MS
residence. DID the defendant so 70
Georgia with. sn.ahoaes5 purpose to
make his home in Georgia and having
Georgia for his res;iencs? Il re tda
then the court had Jurisdiction Of MS
cause. But il he went 20 Georgia Ior
a temporary purpose, for 70 purpose
to acquire a residence there, but TO
get e divorce there aud core &c cA
into South Carolina claiming oi73r-
ce, then tie court oi Georgia never
boS i,,-icS;otio,. ~ TIo cargo II re