The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1906-04-27
BAD MK'UP FOR DIVORCE
DECISION By Z. $ COURT TURNS
THINGS UPSIDE DOWN.
Takes Hard Fan out OF South Dakota
Divorce Mills, and Other Places
Where 1t Comes Easy.

washington. April I'm an Opin-
ion by Justice White, the supreme
court OF the United States yesterday
decided the case OF John " Haddock
versus Harriet HaddOck, a divorce
proceeding Instituted in the courts Of
New York city, in favor OF the Wom-
an The HaddOcks were married IN
1868, and the husband claimed 10
have been an unwilling participant IN
the ceremony He says in his answer
TO the woman's complaint that he left
her Immediately after the marriage
rites were performed and during all
the time that has interviewed has seen
her only three times
In 1881. he secured a divorce in the
state Of Connecticut, where he then
resided, and in 1882 was married there
to another woman
The New York supreme court held
the Connecticut marriage to be lie
gal, decreed the first wife to be still
the legal wife and directed HaddOck
to pay her an annuity OF $3.50. That
finding was sustained by tOdays de-
cision, which held that Mrs HaddOck
was without the jurisdiction OF the
Connecticut court
justice White, in deciding the case,
laid down the general principle that a
vOrcs proceeding resides has no right
to 3issOl:e a marriage tie which all
other states must respect
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Brown
united in a dissenting opinion which
was delivered by Justice Brown. They
took the position that the Connecticut
divorce proceeding was regular, and
is entitled to cue cTedence in other
states. Justice ErcRn declared in his
D-nI.sT, that the court had taken q.
backward step I'm tits direction
Justice Holmes also dissented from
the decision Of the court, but deliver
ed an independent opinion. He said
the result Of the decision would be TO
] - -
that he would not 90 so far as TO pre-
dict that civilization would come to an
end, whatever the conclusion in the
Means Much Litigation.
Chicago, April lit is estimated
by Chicago lawyers that the decision
OF the supreme court OF the United
States holding illegal all dicoroes ex-
cepI where both parties TO the suit re-
side within the same jurisdiction, will
make illegal 500 divorces that have
been granted in this city alone, and
pave the way for all manner OF COM
plicatiOns in the next generation over
inheritance and the rights TO proper
ty-
Several prominent attorneys declare
that the decision simply means chaos
in regard to the title TO personal pro-
perry, as in cases where a man who
was, in the sight Of the decision, IL
legally divorced, and remarked, his
property must Of necessity go to his
legal heirs. and cannot be held by any
children Of any woman he may have
married subsequent to his divorce
St Louis, April 1.-THE decision
Of the United States supreme court
regarding divorces will, il is estimat-
ed, render invalid more than 2, 900 di-
vOrces granted in St Louis in the last
ten years. In a large proportion Of
the cases filed in the circuit court, the
defendant was not a resident OF the
state Of Missouri
Sioux Falls. S. D., April 1.-THE
United States supreme court decision
in the HaddOck divorce case created q
sensation here today among members
Of the divorce colony. Attorneys in
terested in the South Dakota divorce
industry say they are not prepared at
this time to state what effect the de-
cisiOn will have on the industry. How
ever, it is belived that, regardless Of
the decision, the present members Of
the colony will not abandon their in
tentiOn to secure divorces.