New-York tribune., 1906-04-18
CHILDREN WILL SUFFER
DyVORCE RULING FEdRED.
Lasoyers Say Litigation is Certain
Hill Keen Business Here.

1.wv.r, 90 .bis ci., who have been interested in
divorce cases seemed 10 be agreed Nesleroa! mat
tho decision a. the United States Supreme court
IN ,be E4addocl, case would stop New Workers from
going 10 Western s,a:cs or territories &c get di-
,..r.,os which could aot he Obtained in their own
ssa;e
US = good dsci-on IN respect said one Of
ia. ls--ae-s because it VIII help keep the di
,-nr,e business here in New York. When New
yolIc~s who are bound break their marriage
,i.s find out that a Western divorce is not good
here ,Iey viii Dauonizc their home courts IL
well 90 keep business at home.
II VAS said by the lawyers. however. that one
effect of the decision would be 10 create litigation
over estates Of mon who had obtained divorces in
the West and later had renarlied In this city The
decision said. would unsetue property rights
OF ihe second wives in such cases and make the
children 81 The second marriages inegitimate. 1t
&c saia that several hundred second marriages of
Ne-v Eoikers who obtained divorces in Dakota
courts hsne been made Illegal by the decision of
the Tinted States Supreme Court
Abr.rr J. Eose. who counsel FOR John w
Tfasdoch in the case decided by the highest
cor:t. said yesterday:
II would seem from TIE published extracts hat
s1 divorces that have been granted where the
rar4les did not have marital domicle In the state
rsrsntinr the di-orcc when the process was served
b. publication. that sCcl divorces are Hold, @ An1
OF course. IL follows. if they are subsequent mar
s4sge IS negaI The children born & o. sucn ,7 sno @
Ecquent marriages ilee!tlnldIs. anu .uFH -
he entitled 10 inherit properly be-oheins 10 "lei'
parents ,,-.,.,,, ,,,,-,to,,,ar,, 90 80 .tten-
I+llS Ists was DFoD@i-t lt~l ~ .'''1s
ilou of The Supreme C0Crt OF the United States In
my brief On the argument emphas!zec ana % en-
lsr~e6 upon what was said in my brief. as follows:
IT marital dOrnire :he domicile Of OOth par
,,os ,e essentisl and .be bona ode domice OF the
one Of III naTfes cannot confer jurisdiction prob
ehlv majority or divorces heretofore granted
1hey We're granted because. based on the bona fde
residence Of one OF the parties only such holding
would ilegitimatize numberless children ana ana, un- IN
'settle rights Of property TO an alarming ana IN
calculsble extent
Alfred c. Pete one OF Mr.. Roses partners, who
prepared the briefs in the case, said:
II the decision is outlined in the newspapers.
-he effect is 10 limit the jurisdiction over matters
of divorce 10 the state in which both parties are
granted IN which only OF the parties was domi-
ciled every such divorce Is invalid and II in Such
case the party obiainng the dIEorce mas re,
married. children horn of the second marriage
fbo decree OF divorce was granted is still. in the
ieyes Of the Law. his legal wife and entitled TO
that the effect is only illegitnlatize num-
heress children, bat also 10 unsette rghts OF prop
This was decision upon question which the
when a similar question OF divorce discussed
sn the case or Nherton aCi. Atherton. IN tne me
fhe state of Kentucky. but the husband abandoned
The wife and came 10 the state Of New York The
wife sued for 4 divorce In Kentucky, without per
sonal service upon the husband in that state or NJ
States Supreme Court held that as Kentucky was
the state OF the marital domlclle ne 19ds ,I
rendered IN the divorce action entitled 10 fuli
Faith and credit throughout the United States al
appesrsnce by the defendant in the action.
Later. in the case Of Andrews agt Andrews. lhe
rlaintif 10 Dakota and there acquired "A resi-
dence and brought action FOR divorce against has
wife who was d resident Of Illinois. She person
ally appeared in the action IA the Dakota courts.
Notwithstanding her personal appearance and sub
ffrrne herself the jurisdiction Of that court the
Supreme court held that there was no marital
dorncilo in Dakota. the decree OF divorce rendered
tn that state was entitled to any eNtTa-ter-
riforial effect But in the Andrews case they fe-
served ne question presented IN the Haddock case
sS TO whether not the donicile Of both parues
was essential. whether the bona hde domiclle OF
one only the parties requisite 10 give JullS-
diriion 1t is this question that has been decided
in tho IEaddOCk
Henry Willis smith counsel for Mrs. Haddock.
tbe first wife. said Yesterday hat he could not
speak of the effect of the decision in other cases
SO Gar As my client was concerned. he added. the
point raised wss that she had not been informe d
of The divorce action brought against her ny her
husband. Ned been in absolute ignorance OF the faCl
that such action waS brought and therefore had
been able 10 contest IT, also raised the point
That vsS not a resident OF fhe state in which
Tho action brought. and therefore was nor
hound by 2 decision Of the court IN that state