Evening journal., 1919-02-28
MARRIAGE LAWFUL,
Divorce GRANTED
Couple Welded in New
York Are Separated
in Delaware
IMPORTANT LEGAL
QUESTION SETTLED
special to The Evenlne Journal.

special TO The Evening Journal.
DOVER. Del, Feb. 2s.-In Superior
Court yesterday decision was handed
down in the divorce case Of Mary
Petras VS.. Adam Petras. The case was
heard at the present term Of the Su-
perior Court before Chief Justice Pen
newill and Associate Judge Rice. the
points raised being the first Of their
kind in the State, and the opinion Of
the court the first Of its kind, estab-
fishing a precendent in that respect in
this state. The opinion Of the court,
as given by Chief Justice Pennewill,
follows:
The ground or cause for divorce in
this case Is extreme cruelty. This al
legation Is clearly proved, and IS not
contradicted by the defendant.
The defendant does, however. deny
that there is any evidence showing
that the plaintiff and defendant were
ever legally married.
The plaintiff testified that her mar
Tiage 20 the defendant was solemnized
by a notary public in 1901, in the state
Of New York, where they resided at
the time, and where they continued TO
live until about 1914, when they came
TO Delaware.
Under the laws OF the state OF New
York, a notary public had no authority
to perform marriage ceremony
neither was a common law marriage
recognized there in the year i904. Ac-
cording 10 a law Of that state that be-
came effective January 4, 1902 mar
riages were required 10 be sOlemnized
in certain specified ways. and common
law marriages, that were valid before.
were no longer recognized, the law
providing that no marriage claimed 10
have been contracted on and after
January 1, 1902, within this state.
otherwise than this Article provided,
shall be valid for any purpose wnat-
ever. ETC.
But this law was repealed by statute
passed in 1907, and the courts have
construed the repeating act to make
common law marriages valid in that
State. In the case Matter Of Hinman
li7 n. Y. App. Div. Rep. sup. Court i52,
decided in 1911. the court said:
I think the repeal shows the
changed public policy Of the state.
and that the Legislature became salts
fled that the provision making mar
rlages void unless performed in a par
llcular manner was against the public
policy and public morals. and that q
repeal was intended TO and did make
common law marriages valid in this
State
80 that we may assume. in view Of
this statement OF the law and the testi-
mony respecting their cohabitation, ad-
missions and repute subsequent TO 1907
10 the state where they lived. that
there was a common law marriage
which was valid in that state. and that
the plaintiff and defendant were hus-
band and wife under its laws when
the plaintiff brought her action here.
The only question, therefore. that this
court IS required to determine is
whether IN view Of that fact the plain
tiff and defendant shall for the pur-
poses Of this case be regarded as hav-
ing been legally married.
The question Is not whether a com
mon law marriage shall be recognized
in this state, but whether a marriage
that Is entirely valid under the laws
Of a State where the parties lived and
from which they came, shall be recog-
AAaNu UF uul NNuA - IL az ulNA0A VI III
vorce, even though such marriage was
a common law marriage?
in every action for divorce it must
be proved that the plaintiff was legally
married to the defendant. but the pldin-
tiff Is not required to show that the
marriage was solemnized according to
the laws Of this state. The essential
fact to be proved is that it was valid
according to the laws Of the State or
county where it is alleged 70, have
been performed or cOnsummated
There Is no doubt that the plaintiff
and defendant were legally married
under the laws Of the. State Of New
York and we can see no escape from
a recognition Of such marriage in this
proceeding II we are to recognize the
validity OF a contract or marriage rela-
tion that Is perfectly legal. according
20 the laws Of a sister State.
"Thls does not mean that the cour3
would recognize a common law mar