The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1908-08-04
A UNIFORM DIVORCE LAW.
Yours.
BILL.

An argument for a uniform divorce
law is found in the status of a colored
oouple of Washington City. In one OF
the Washington City newspapers ap-
pears the following paragraph: "When
divorce comes hard in Washington, do
not wait for a decree-jump on troll
lev and get quick divorce in Alexan-
dria'
The husband filed suit in Washing
ton City and much evidence had been
takeneon both sides when he left town.
The expense was piling up higher than
he expected it, for the wife employed
ATTORNEYS and resisted the suit. In this
state of progress of the suit the hus-
land moved from Washington City, D.
c., to Alexandria, Va. After he had
lived in Alexandria awhile he filed suit
for divorce. alleging that his wife had
deserted him and when last heard of
was somewhere in New Jersey. A final
decree was granted and the man moved
back to Washington City. Is he mar
ried or divorced? The lawyers are
puzzled about his status
The wife's Cor the former wife's)
LAWYERS will try to have the decree at
Alexandria set aside. This might sim
plify the situation. Suppose the man
after receiving the divorce in Alexan-
dria, married. as is often the case
when divorces are granted The legal
tangle would have been still more
complex. The colored man says he in
structed his counsel in Washington
City to dismiss the suit, but this could
not be done because all accounts were
not settled. The husband could not set
tie and moved to Alexandria, where he
got divorce cheaply and without
contest
What a farce is here presented! The
District of Columbia courts might
like the courts of New York state, re-
fuse to recognize the Virginia divorce
because Virginia was not the matrimo-
NAL domicile and because jurisdiction
over the wife in such a case could not
be obtained by publication of service.
New York state courts recently held
a divorce decree issued in Virginia
invalid. and the wife that obtained the
decree and married another man was
virtually found by New York to have
entered into an adulturous relation,
for the New York courts granted her
husband a divorce on the allegation of
adultery. Such deplorable situation
does the varying practice of the differ
ent states bring about. The wife left
her husband in New York state and
moved to Virginia. In the divorce pro-
ceedings her husband was served by
publication and did not appear. After
the decree was granted, she married
another man. Her New York husband
hearing of this brought suit for di
vorce in New York state and obtained
a decree on the ground of the alleged
adulterous relation of his wife in Vir-
ginia. The wife Cor former wife) re-
sisted and set up the Virginia divorce
as bar to the New York husbands
action without avail. The reason of
the New York court was that the mat
rimonial domicile of the wife was in
New York and not in Virginia Had
the wife brought the suit in New York.
jurisdiction could have been obtained
over the husband by publication if ne
had been absent
One of the judges of the appellate
division of the New York supreme
count, to which an appeal was taken
and which affirmed the decision in ia
vor of the New York husband. not
withstanding the Virginia decree. was
outspoken about the need of reform
in divorce proceedings. This unfor-
tunate state of the law relating to di-
vorces." he said. "by which a divorce
is regarded as valid in one state ana
void in another with oil +bo lan,ouol1,