The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-12-03
KN0TTY POINT
ON DIVORCE IS
BEFORE COURT

The supreme court today discussed at
considerable length and listened TO inter
esting arguments as TO whether or not
any appeal lies TO that court from a final
decree in a divorce case entered In the
superior court
Chief Justice Douglas called attention
which was different from all other con-
tracts i'm its effect on the parties and So
ciety. Re said that under this statute
and its implied invitation a person might.
II the decree entered at the end of six
months after decision was not really
final commit bigamy and lead an inno-
cent party into very serious predica-
ment.
The matter came before the court to-
day on the appeal of the respondent in
the Washington county divorce case OF
Jennie l.. Fidler VS.. Welcome Fldler; and
the motion of petitioner that execution
might issue whereby Mrs. Fidler seeks 10
secure Sl4 OF alimony due her. Mrs. t1d-
ler sought separate maintenance.
Her husband filed motion IN the ma
ture of a cross-petition asking for an abb
solute divorce. Judge Stearns on April
H. 1906 gave decision for Mrs Fidler and
denied her husbands motion. Mrs. Fid-
Ter was allowed alimony OF So week.
Mr.. Fidler has not paid this, and Is %
weeks in Arrears.
There is "A provision i'm the court and
ACT dllpNlllk Ju NtS = III NilNH W
take an appeal i'm civil actions or equity
causes from dnal decrees. John w. Swee-
ney, counsel for Mrs. F'idler. argued that
the decree in this case was not one from
which an appeal lay.
Judge Blodgett asked IL any appeal
whatsoever lay In a divorce matter. The
chief justice asked of counsel what the
words concerning divorce petitions follow
ing the course Of equity meant as they
were used in the statute.
Mr.. Aldrlch. who took the appeal went
over pretty thoroughly the origin of dl-
vorce Jurisprudence and Chief Justice
Douglas said he was aware that the bar
was OF opinion that an appeal did lie in
such cases, though this was the first d.
vorce case in which an appeal had been
taken.
Mr. Aldrich went into the views OF diff
ftrent courts upon this subject. some of
which viewed the present Jurisdiction as
that OF the ecclesiastical courts.
some cases holding the jurisdiction OF a
criminal nature and In some states like
this, the court holding the matter was one
purely Of statutory jurisdiction.
Mr.. Aldrich referred 10 section 32S OF the
court and practice act. which is as fol-
lows ANY party aGlgrieved by a final de-
cree of the superior court I'm any cause in
equity or proceedings following the course
OF equity. may within 30 days after the
entry thereof appeal to the supreme
court"
The decree I'm Mrs. Fidler's case was
Mr.. Aldrich maintained. such a decree as
the court allowed appeals from.
Mr. Aldrich I'm his brief said that the
section giving parties divorced the right
20 remarry was as follows: After fined
decree from the bond Of marriage either
party may marry again; but no decree
for such divorce shall become final and
operative until six months after trial and
decision"
lie argued that this section applied only
Il divorces from the bond OF marriage and
decrees granting such divorces. it having
nothing 20 do with denying divorces from
the bond OF marriage.
The court said the subject was a very
broad one and the court wished all the
llsaht possible thereon. No decision was
given.