The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-06-01
BALTIMORE
EARLE MARRIAGE STANDS
UNLJCKT SOIL NATE rams TO
GET IT INNULLED
Justice FtIEs'erpld Requires Evidence of
the BearinE Of the Italian Law On the
French NV orre, which VAS Granted
q NOnth after the second Marriage

The marriage of Ferdinand Pinney
Earle 20 julia Kuttner Earle stands. AZ
least for the present although IN the
wife's suit 20 annul Il Asssmblymsn James
A. Foley. referee. found for her on the
ground that when Earle married her IN
Venice In March. 1905, his first wife. Emile
FisohbackeT Earle. had MT yet got her
French divorce. Justice iitzGerald re-
fused yesterday % confirm the report
His chief reason was that m" referee has
ignored the laws n Italy and whether the
marriage 70 Julia Kuttncr would he recog-
niaed as leEEl there.
The report was not filed m tho County
Clerks 0ffioe "a IL usual, but was sub
mitied by counsel for Mrs karle directly
20 Justice FitzGerald when tho motion 10
confirm the decree was mad" Justice
FitsGerald got the report over a month
ago and made ms decision late yesterday
afternoon The report and the motion
papers in the case we're tiled Immediately
WITH the clerk of Part Ill, special Term
Of De supreme Court. hut on the ground
that IL was a matrimonial action the clerk
Justice FitzGerald's decision says
The referee states without knowledge
a. 70 whether the marriage would bo legal
under the Italian law and there II no
evidence m the record as % what the Law
n, Che cases cited 10 support - the con
tehtion that such avid.nC, h. immataris
disclose, IN my opinion. distinguisha bic
facts Aiherton vs. AthertUu isl [. >.
1851 narrows itself down. IN the language
~ Mr Justice Gray. % the validity II 4
diVofcs granted after such notes has been
given az was required by the statute q
Kentucky
The decision q Justice FitpGersld was
taken % mean that the Supreme COur;
~ the United States hes held that the
validity 4 a divorce IN 40 FAR - II Affects
a marriage elsewhere depends upon the
STATUE " th- STATE or country where the
naarriage tskas place The Court ac-
cordingly ruled that 10 was highly material
fcr the r'frr0c 20 take testimony regard
ing the bearing - the Italian Law upon the
French dsors4 81 divorce.
While Earle was represented by counsel
Throughout The proceedings before the
referee. the defence was only 81 the formal
nature required - send the cas- before a
referee Counsel Tor Earle did not op-
y
rsp1rI and ftha court e decision Il due
entirely % ~ own unwillinRness o grant
an anuulmert 1n Insufficient testimony
y J Hughes counsel for Mr. karla
eai1 .4s' rIgn' Inst the Court ruling vas
aRlrrrIfa % him because he thought every
po.rf had heeu covered upon which the
Court would require testimony n 10
only question n putting IN additional
eviceuoe. be- said and that will be done
AZ Cnoe There ia no doubt that under
To law NJ Itliy the divorce had not be-
CINE effective and accordingly the mar
riage WaE void
When Mrs Earle brought her annulrnant
eit over a year ago shn declared IN the
original complaint that her husband
Was insan" and that IN account 81 his
gneni4! efGaf. 10 ta .suiFhetf-si narriarn
With her whef Doc was stiIl the husband of
former wife She Withdrew the IN
sanity allegation later
Ealre married his first wife Enoil,a
tl8chback-f In France seven years AGO
ln 1917 he met Julia kuttner on a steamer
whsn ~ Irnlng from Europe ana she
vent y be home 70 Monroe Ne con
vincod hs wife that Miss Kuttner wa hir