The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1912-05-02
THEM
| BARE HANDED
,....me Court Goes After
po.b arties in H am
ilton Case.

Sdayis filed in the case DC 'nor-
aI', aslv Investigated" by the pros
VINO % attorney Of Idaho county
a denying the motion to set asi
y i;vorce v decree and open the
,,i.ult % IN the case of Nettie F.
n.n;lton versus w. S. Hamilton,
!. sunreme court in an opinion
..,dsd down late yesterday after
.san sffirms the judgment Of the
Ssriet court for Idaho county,
n. I.dse Edgar c. Steele presiding.
49, sss'o 'ouinion is written by Chief
I.stice Is Stewart and Justice Sulli-
- eoncurs. Justice Ailshie sat
!. the case but did not partici-
Dsts in its consideration.
What Court Says.
In his opinion Chief Justice Ste
Fat says: -
uNettie F. Hamilton, the wife,
pumenced an action in the dis
tret court in Idaho county
psinst W. S. Hamilton, her hus-
hand for divorce and for the
mSession of certain real and
personal property. This was al
kged to be property which had
been accumulated during the mar
rjsge relations of the Haniltons.
The wife also asked for the Gus
tody Of her three children, the
issue Of the marriage, aged re-
spectively 16, 9 and 3 years, two
sons and daughter. The wife
alleged statutory grounds as foun-
dation for the divorce.
''The lower court found that
Ae husband was duly served with
summons and failed to appear,
and a decree of divorce was grant
cd and the property involved was
awarded to the wife as her sep
srate property. She was also
given the custody of the children.
Later, the husband caused to
be served upon the wife a notice
that he would move the court to
set aside the decree of divorce
and open the default. Before this
came up for final action by the
court the wife filed two affidavits
one by herself and the other by
Edgar Snowman, to whom she
bad been married subsequent to
lAe granting Of the divorce. The
loWer court ON Oct. IL, 1911,
made an order denying the hus-
oand 5 motion to set aside the de-
eree and open the default. From
lhs order the appeal to the SUI
preme court was taken. y
Orders Investigation.
Upon the affidavits made,
which are so general and vicious
= % cause anyone to pause and
a0nOt long before the statements
soad be accepted as being truth
lal It no doubt was a difficult
'eK for the trial court to deter
alle who had sworn to the truth,
saa mat court, after reading the
sliluavlts and seeing the parties
qua having heard the divorce
ul and observed the parties
VINO testified, concluded upon
saen hearing to refuse to open
~ ~ default and we are not in
slned to hold that the trial court
'0used sases its legal discretion.
Il. We direct that a copy OF
Is opinion be transmitted to
l. y prosecuting attorney Of Ida
i. y county with directions that
y, u cnarges made in the affida.
s' ~ Iled in this case be thor.
Ds saly investigated and that sucl
i,aaa i0seoure be taken as is justified
'l such investigation. .
..n What Records Show.
A.. Inc record Of the case shows
@s @as the wife Of Hamilton was
f,1 f'ieG soon after her divorce
nsn ~ hamilton to Edgar Snow
fo,n This marriage was per
Ia.l's upon a license granted il
tbs 'o '..e county, but, according tt
tbs. Wl1e, when it was learned
NIT a' y .ae Idaho laws did not per
timo VI remarriage within sucl
Asot;,.s I she and Snowman went tt
proeaa' washington, where the,
s,ssured ws,a another license anc
'sss ''r, again married.
Cd H. y principal grounds advan,
hs hamilton, the husband. il
vera IOuon to open the defaul
aeeo,sa spaser upon the assertion
Was T''uing to the records, that h
virtually forced tn consen