Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1916-03-28
Divorce Decree of Circuit
Court Reversed After Men
Had Remarked
CASE REOPENED AFTER
DEFAULT DECREE ISSUED
Judge Galloway Affirmed In
Linn County Contested
VIII Case

r. o. Hague was granted an extra
wife by decree of the supreme court
this morning and now has two women
20 cheer and bless his home in ais de-
clining years. 1t happens that the su-
preme court gave back to Mr.. Hague
his first wife whom he thought he had
lost by decree Of the divorce court
but the higher court reversed the de-
cree Of the circuit court and rendered
the divorce invalid. Hague married
again after the decree was granted in
the circuit court and it is probable that
a real Hague Tribunal will be called to
settle the question since there are three
Hagues vitally interested in the mat
ter.
In the review of the case by Chief
Justice Moore states that T. 0. Hague
was married to Anna f. Hague in New
York in 1868 and that nine children
were born to the union In 1906 Mr..
Hague brought suit for a divorce in
klamath county but the court ordered
that he pay into the court the sum of
1925 for suit money and this Hague re-
fused to do. He filed another suit for
divorce in MultnOmah county in 1907
and upon the court 5 order that he pay
$75 for suit money this case also fell
through Then June 81, 1911 the pres
ent suit was begun.
Hague published the summons in an
Oregon City paper and since his wife
was in New York sne did not hear Of
the case and Hague secured decree of
divorce by default. He then married
again and it is said that Wife No. 2
is now living in Klamath county.
Three years after the decree of divorce
was granted, or October |, 1914, Mrs.
Hague No. l heard of the divorce and
through her attorney moved to set
aside the decree on the ground that it
was fraudulent in that she was not
served with summons. she was allow
ed to file an answer to the suit of the
plaintiff and after the case was heard
Judge Campbell granted Mr. Hague I
decree of divorce and Mrs Hague No.
] appealed to the supreme court.
Now that the supreme court, in an
opinion by Chief Justice Moore, re-
verses the decree of the lower court and
holds that Hague is not entitled to a
divorce it follows that the states high
est court hereby tenders his first wife
back to him and Hague thus has two
wives Justices Bean, Harris and Ne
Bride concurred in the opinion.
The supreme court reversed the iudg-
ment of the lower court on the grounds
that Hague could have found out t1e
address of his wife through the chill.
dren and could have served personal
summons upon her had he desired to
give her a chance to be heard in court
and the reversal is based upon the fact
that he did not make an honest effort
to find out her whereabouts.
The ruling of Judge William Gallo
way in the ease of Mary Elizabeth Rob
inson, against George A. McCart and
others was upheld in the supreme court
today in an opinion handed down by
Justice Mcbride This case was ap-
pealed from Linn county by the defend.
ants, 1t appears that George McCart
died in 1912 leaving large estate
which was disposed of by a will and
under the terms OF the will he sought
to provide against any attempt of a
| divorced wife to secure larger share
of his property. Elizabeth Robinson
the plaintiff, is one of the heirs and
seeks to have the sole control of her
snare of the property which was deed
ed in trust to George A. McCart and the
proceeds paid to her.
Justice Mcbride holds that the men.
tai capacity of the old man was seri.
ously impaired by his illness at the time
he made the will and that the plaintiff
was entitled to her share according to
the decree Of the lower court.
The otner opinions follow:
Valeria G. Benvie VS.. Portland Rail.
way Light 4 Power Co., appellant, ac.
tion for damages for personal injuries,
appealed from Clackamas county, opin-
ion by Justice Benson, Circuit Judge
Campbell's S judgment for PLAINTIFF re-
verscd.
c, II. Playman VS.. Commercial Under
writer's, at Commercial Inter Insurance
Exchange ct Il, appellants, appealed
from Multnomah county, action on an
insurance policy, opinion by Justice Nc