The Washington times., 1910-10-28

Divorce decrees obtained in South Da-
kOta courts viii be worthless in the Dis
trict OF Columbia, Il an opinion handed
down today by Justice Stafford, Of the
District Supreme Court. holds
rs IL for the public interest that di-
vorces Of this character should be held
good2'' asks Justice Stafford in the
course Of his lengthy opinion, and he
answers it by declaring invalid a dc-
cree obtained IN South Dakota by Nil
ton T. Davis divorcing him from Anna
D Davis
The case IN question Is the suit brought
by Mrs. Davis Tor an absolute divorce
from her husband and for allnony. The
answer made TO the petition by the hus-
band was that he had obtained an alb
sclute divorce from his wife in South
Dakota on December 3, 1S07, having
gone TO that State on April "a, 1871, for
that purpose.
Raises National Question.
In rendering the opinion Justice stat
ford raises a national legal question
pertaining TO the so-caned snap d.
vorces," and II is probable that the
issue viii be carried to the court Of
last resort.
Another legal point involved IN the
decision viii be the legality OF mar
riages Of South Dakota Divorces in the
District OF Columbia. Davis having
married Daisy Shepard, who was
named as the correspondent IN his
wife's divorce suit. The marriage took
place in South Dakota, but under Jus
tice Stahord's ruling has no legal status
in the suit brought by Mrs. Davis.
Davis Is an employe Of the Mer-
chants Parcel Delivery and earns
about SIS a week. it is claimed. He and
Mrs Davis were born IN the District
and were married in Washington March
30 1897. The couple separated in 1901
and did not live together after that
time. Davis obtained his South Da-
kota divorce on the grounds Of .!eser-
tlon, and three weeks later he was
married TO Daisy Shepherd.
Staftord's Opinion.
After reviewing the evidence in the
case, which he declared showed that
that Davis wrongfully left the Dis
trict Of Columbia TO escape his marital
obligations Justice stafford saws in
part:
"Inasmuch as the defendant was the
party in the wrong and deserted his
wife and left this Jurisdiction In these
circumstances It follows that the court
Of South Dakota had no Jurisdiction
over her and no right TO bind her BY its
decree. The matrimonial domicile was
here, and here Ii rem.ined There is
no reason why she should 90 I.5OO miles
TO ~7SWer his false complaint She did
not init to the Jurisdiction OF that
com and whatever may be its ef-
feet IN South Dakota II is OF no effect
here.
South Dakota grants an absolute d.
VOrCe for various causes including de-
sertion, as in this case. In the District
Of Columbia divorces are granted for
one cause only, and that cause is not
desertion-
Consequences Serious.
1T is true the consequences Of a re-
I fusal to recognize the decree may be
serious TO the defendants, but so would
be the consequence to the plaintiff OF
recognizing the decree.
rs it for the public interest that ct
/ vorces Of this character should be held
good? Would the example be whole
some or unwholesome II we sboulf
ground Of COmity2 Would IL tend Il
strengthen or weaken the ties OF mar.
/ riage and Of the family? Would 4
tend TO preserve or destroy the home?
There being no doubt upon the evil
deuce that the defendant has been p11fIrJ
plaintiffs prayer for an absolute di
vOrce will be granted. and the defend,
ant will be required to pay a reasona ble
I sum by way of alimony and to make
I reasonable provision for the support OF
the minor child, the custody OF WHOM
. will ha n he MI