The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1910-12-02
new DIVORCE Law
may Be ENACTED
Courts Decision Leads Law
yers to Believe Law Is
Unconstitutional.
KINGCASE AN EXAMPLE
Seems as Though There May
Be Remarriage Despite
Prohibitory Decree.

indianapolis. Dec. 2.--Lawyers who
have read the decision handed down
by the supreme court in an appeal
from st. Joseph county. believe the
court meant plainly to hold that in
case divorced person remarries with
In two years In spite Of decree pro-
hibiting such remarriage within that
time such person cannot be punished
for the violation. While the court de-
cides only the case before 1t at the
time. the lawyers say that the Ian
guage used In inc opinion is SO plain
and general in It's nature that 1t lays
down a general rule to that effect.
II this In the real gist of the deci-
sion. Il IL pointed out 1t will throw
down the bars and open UP the way
BY which divorced persons may re-
marry at any time after the divorce
has been granted.
q. Joseph County Case.
Ada King was divorced from her
husband. Archillous King In st. Jo-
seph county on April 13. 1908. She
had given notice Of the filing OF her
suit by publication in a newspaper In
the legal manner. In the decree of the
court her maiden name Of Ada Cripe
was given her. and she was prohibited
from remarrying within two years.
Tho divorce statute says that where
q divorce Is granted In a case In
which notice has been given by pub
lication this prohibition shall be
part OF the decree. but the statute
does not provide penalty for viola
ton Of the statute.
But Ada Grippe and William Branner
slipped over TO st. Joseph. Mich. about
o month after tho divorce and were
married. the woman thus disregarding
the prohibitory part of the judgment.
Later on John Seifert hled In the st.
Joseph circuit court an afYidavit charg.
Ing the woman with contempt Of
court In violating the decree. Just
how Seifert. an outsider. happened to
iile the afidavit II not shown in the
record OF the case. The prosecuting
attorney and another attorney Of
South Bend came into the case at this
point. the prosecutor TO protect the
interests Of the state. They filed n
request that the woman be placed I'M
der bond for her appearance to answer
the charge of contempt. the motion be-
ing based on an affidavit that she was
about to leave the jurisdiction Of the
court.
The court refused to place the wom-
an under bond. and on her motion the
court discharged her. holding that
6eifert's afidavit was not sufficient to
charge contempt OF court. The pros.
ccuting attorney appealed from this
decision to the supreme court.
Opinion Of the Court.
Chief Justice Myers wrote the opin-
lon OF the court and in 1t says:
THE statute making remarriage un.
lawful within two years Ia grounded
upon consideration Of public policy.
and tho violation OF the order Is ne
cessarily a violation Of declared pub.
lie policy. but no penalty Is attached.
and We must presume from a public
policy not to do 20. The order OF the
court II simply the statement OF the
legislative Nat. without any penalty
attached and It's violation Is not the
violation Of the courts decree. but
the violation Of the statute for which
no penalty II attached. nor has any
been expressly provided by any other
statute. Under this statute there IL
no right vested In the former spouse
or any individual. either Of property
or Of personal character which car
be affected by the remarriage. It Ii
significant that no penalty is imposed
for tho violation of this statute and as
all our ofYenses are statutory. It car
hardly be insisted that general laws
or other statutes may be looked to
unless It be the statute of contempt
Get a box Of those delicious choco