The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-06-12
HUGHES. DIVORCE
 WITHOUT CREDIT
WOMAN 25 YEARS SEPARATED ! FROM HUSBAND WINS SEQ.
 OND VICTORY
SEEKs SHARE OF $50, 900 ESTATE

,
 crotected by "Faith and Credit'
 Clause of Constitution of United States.
 Margaret Hughes. fashionable tiressmakex, who is now we'll advanc- ed in years and feeble, scored sec nnd signal victory, this morning, in her suit against her husband. Matthew Hughes. for maintenance. Judge Lu- eieu F. Burpee handed down a decis- Ion in which he pronounced the di- E-orce obtained by the husband in Os- sxaloosa. Ia, quarter of a century ago. fraudulent, and the action Of the Iowa court in granting it not en- titled to consideration in Connecticut under the faith and credit" clause or the constitution of the United States.
 This triumph of Mrs. Hughes was won for her by her able counsel Ed ward F. Hallen, secretary Of the Board .,of Education, and Stiles Judson, the states attorney
 The story moves like Dowp East drama. Matthew Hughes is r9w ap- proaching 70 years of age. ,1e IS re- ported to be worth 50,00O. f~He owns fheS block in which O'Ne1fs Rubber store is located, on Main street. north Of Fairfield avenue. and occupies an upper room in the building, in which he Hives a semi-hermit life
 More than p years ago. according so thes story told by Mrs. Hughes lawyers he conveyed his property to his brother. went to Oskaloosa, %. kained the divorce upon the ground or desertion, immediately returned 10 Bridgeport and received his property again
 lever, was unknown to Mrs. Husnes, until her suit was brought, two years ago for such a share of his estate alleged to be worth s50.O00 as the court should determine her equltapiy entitled to- The clam was me met .ps bs husband, with the assertion that there had been a western divorce and that the claimant had long since ceased 10 he the wife of the defendant. Also, as another defense, he asked for affir- mative relief in the way or oivorce at that time
 Some months ago the matter of af- hru1atfve relief in the way of a pres ent divorce was denied by the court after a hard fought hearing. t The validity of the Western divorce was then. attacked by Mrs. Hughes. the claim being made that, according to 6Iaddock vs. Haddock, 8 celebrated leading case. the western divorce was of no validity in Connecticut. tn that Mrs. Hughes could not be personally served with notice, because she had made no appearance in the action. 1n- deed, it was claimed, the first inti- aratfon she had had of the divorce was hn pleading in which the claim was made that it had been granted It Twas further alleged that Hughes went to Iowa for the purpose of obtaining hhe divorce and fraudulently alleged tthat he had domfcile there when in fact he had no domicile; that he had previously conveyed all his property to his brother in Bridgeport, now dead, that immediately after his return from the west his property was re- conveyed to him. The whole matter cf the validity of the western divorce Twas recently threshed out in hear hng on demurrer before Judge Lucien b. Burpee. who this morning handed Hown a decision supporting the con- Mention that the Iowa divorce is of kno validity in the State of Connectj- cut as a defense to the wife's action:
 Judge Burpee in his memorandum Of decision finds as follows:
 Tn this action the plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant to contribute to son of large means and property, of which a considerable portion is in this state.
 GAS a second defense to this com- plafnt the defendant sets up that more than 20 years ago he obtained divorce from the plaintiff in the State of Iowa, whereby all marital rights were terminated. In reply the plain vorce on several grounds To this reply the defendant has entered de- murrer.
 "In this condition of the pleadings and for the present purpose the ale / gations of the reply must be taken to be true. Hence it appears that no personal service of process in the di- svorce proceedings was made upon the plaintiff in this action and that she had no knowledge of its pendency in the courts of Iowa; that said decree of divorce in Iowa was obtained by the defendant in this action by means Of nd dulently representing that he had bona fide domicile in that state, where as in fact he was at that time domi- ciled in this state: and that the de- fendant in this action knew the ad- dress of the plaintiff in this action in this state, where personal notice could easily have been given to her of the institution and pendency of the proceedings in Iowa.
 s-The defendant now asks this court to give full faith and credit to de- risdiction. in a proceeding of which this plaintiff had no notice, and in which she did not appear. In such circumstances the jurisdiction of the Iowa court may be inquired into here because it appears that the defendant fin this action had not acquired a bona fde domicile in that state at the time of fnstftuting proceedings, and his 10 collateral attack. A court of one state cannot grant divorce binding upon an absent defendant who resid- ed in another state, and who has had mo notice or knowledge of the pen dency of the proceedings in favor of any person who has not acquired a domicile in that state in which the Judgment was rendered. Such a di- vorce obtained in any state is entitled 10 no faith and credit in another state
 Moreover whenever a judgment has been rendered in any state and it appears that the defendant has had no opportunity of being heard before his rights were passed upon, it is against a Fundamental axiom of justice to give such a judgment full faith and credit or any effect whatever.
 "ICven if the defendant had had a bona fide dinicile in Iowa when he be- gan proceedings there and had practic- ed no fraud in the Iowa Court, this