Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1907-02-27
MRS. BASSETT AND HUNT LOSE
Decree Of Ahspluts Divorce Granted 6u--
band In Wash ington Stands,
COURT HERE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
such H. Decision of Judge Rediek,
who fs Now Asked 60
/, Deal with Children
Problem.

The divorce secured by Charles c. Bas-
sett IN washington the day the trial OF
his wife's case here began is valid ana
the district court Of Douglas county has
no jurisdiction in the Bsssett divorce case.
This is the decision handed down Tuesday
morning by Judge Redick.
Judge Redick pointed out in the course OF
12-page written opinion that the matri-
monial domicile Of the Bassetts had al
ways remained In Washington and that the
jurisdiction of the courts where the matri-
moniHl domiclle is established is not al
fected by the answer TO the question,
who is at fault when one OF the parties
departs from that domicileT' 1t would be
clearly unjust. says the opinion, to de-
prive one of the parties Of power to get
divorce at home because the other party
had left the state. The TWO cases ON
whose precedent the opinion was based are
those of Anterior and Haddock decided In
the United States supreme court. The
question Of domicile was Of Importance In
the Haddock case. but in the present one
the court held It was not OF Importance
because, as in the Atherton case, the de-
cree offered was rendered by a court In
the place where the plaintiffs domlcile
and that of matrimony had always ex-
listed.
why Action Was Delayed.
The court says:
Perhaps l should say IN explanation OF
the refusal of the court at an carrier stage
OF the trial 20 determine the SoestoIh np NV
the unfortunate plight OF the plainun IN
this case, regardless OF considerations as
to who is responsible therefor; ana II
seemed my duty to leave open TO her every
avenue, which promised succor ana reneI.
And I must not be understood py tnls
present decision as holding that the 1uris-
diction of the Washington court EXTENDS
| TO the determination OF any questions IN
| right which they have to call upon their
father for support and maintenance
The objections to the proceedings OF the
hold in this case that by the decree there
| the marriage relation between the plaintiff
| and defendant was dissolved, and that this
| case. at least insofar ae IL Involves that
| question, must be dismissed
No Surprise to Either.
The attorneys were on nand as usual
and Rev e Lawrence Hunt The an
| nouncement of the decision by the court
| occasioned. seemingly no surprise on either
side Attorneys Baxter and Van Dusen.
/ for Mrs Bassett Immediately asked leave
/ to make a showing to prove that the court
here has jurisdiction TO determine the Gus
tody Of the children, two OF whom are
| with the mother and the other two with
| her relatives in other cities. The court
will hear this matter Wednesday morning.
II Judge Redick decides he has jurisdiction
! to dispose OF the children, the taking OF
testimony viii proceed to show the quail
hcations Of each party 10 have the chill
dren. II the court decides he has no juris-
diction in this matter he Will recognize a
swg.a nh ~ naa
can then apply for.
what will be your future movements
and what course will you pursue to clear
yourself and Mrs. BassettT' reporter
! asked Rev. Mr.. Hunt.
"Regarding my future plans" he replied,
''I cannot state now, because this new sur
| prise has for the day stunned me from my
power to think and plan clearly. Regard
ing the second question, 1t seems clear to
me this morning that the law leaves me or
anyone else utterly powerless legally 70
wipe out this legal stain"
Hunt short of Funds.
As TO carrying the Washington decision
favorine Mr. Bassett to the United States
a,preme court Mr.. Hunt said he had spent
hundreds Of dollars already in the attempt
10 clear himself and Mrs Bassett and was
financially unable at present to carry 1t
nm. As to whether or not he would even
tualiy appeal he was unable to say.
Would YOU accept a church today II II
was -offered?" he was asked.
| ..That is a very delicate question:, he
said. '.ebut IL any church should give me a
cali 1 should certainly accept it"
| The decision Of Judge Redick was blow
TO Mrs. Bassett. She had depended upon
the local court for q victory. She was re-
ported to be not at all well.
| Attorneys Stout and Colliday, for Mr..
Bassett, were naturally elated over their
victory, but said they knew the outcome
could not be otherwise
Mr.. Bassett is still in the city and may
vet be called to the witness stand IL the
court decides to hear the matter of the
childrens' custody. Ben Fairehild, who
was Bassett's chief ally, returned TO New
York several days ago.
Il Chronology of Case.
This Chronology is distracted from re-
cords in the trial:
November II, 1891. Charles C. Bassett
married Miss Fannie Rice.
1909, they met Rev. DR.. Hunt.
May ii. 1904. Bassett left for annual field
October "A 1904. she disappeared.
March IL lSO5 child. Lawrence. born In
june q, 1896. Bassett learned of birth Of
July 4 Bassett found his wife in Atlantic
City. -.
July T. 1895, Mrs. Bassett and Hunt left
Atlantic City. -,
July 81. 1875, Mrs. Bsssett with two child
ren arrived IN Omaha
February a. 1906, petition filed In district
March Z, 1896. Bassett served with sum
! mons In Washington.
March g. Bassett filed divorce peution II
Eovember, 1906, Bassett's case heard,
! February IS, 1896, II a. m, decree giVeT
/ Bzssett In Washington.
February Il. 2 p m, trial begun II
| Omaha