The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-10-10
RENO DlVoRGE=S
 ARE NOT BINDING
 IN CONNECTICUT
New Milford Citizen Faces
 Jail Sentence.

Jail Sentence. Merton c. Tompkins who lives in i New Milford, has learned definitely | that the decree of divorce he obtain | ed from his wife, Mary Ellen Bradley i Tompl1ins of New Milford, in the courts at Reno, Nevada. isn't worth |. the paper it is written upon 4nsofar7 as the law of Connecticut is concern ed. The decree may be valid and binding in Nevada, but Connecticut is another state. While the legal ef- feet in this state as to divorce decrees granted by the Reno courts is not subject of controversy. the law of this state as to the decree of divorce Tompkins obtained in Reno Is fixed, and the decree is of no binding force or effect in Connecticut. Tompktns now confronts the proposition of be- ing committed to jail for ten months unless he makes arrangements to contribute towards thes uppOrt of the woman from whom he believed he was freed by the Reno decree.
 Tompkins for a long time has been a resident of Litchfield county. A few years ago he separated from his wife and landed in Reno, and after he had gained a residence in that state he instituted suit for divorce. Service other than personal was made on Mrs. Tompkins, and as Mrs. Tompkins paid no attention to the notice, the sailing was easy for Tompkins and on hearing on the case he was granted a divorce and within ten days from the date of the decree at Reno, Tompkins was back in Litchfield county and he has since lived there.
 The supreme court of the United States some years ago passed upon the validity of a divorce granted in one of the Western states. The case being one in which the defendant was a resident of another state and did not submit herself to the juris- diction of the state in which the di- vorce was heard. The supreme court decided that any divorce decree granted under such circumstances was of full force and effect in the state in which it was granted, but as to the other states of the Unied States the decree of divorce had no legal effect, and that a person who entered into another marriage con- tract after being divorced under the circumstances outlined, was in so far as the laws of the other states of the Union were concerned. a bigamist
 The return of Tompkins to Litch- field county so soon after the decree of divorce was entered at Reno, did not move smoothly for him, and eventually he was arrested and ar raigned in New Milford before q jus tice of the peace, under a complaint which charged him with non-support of his wife The claim being that re- . gardless of the Reno decree, in so far as the law of Connecticut was con- cerned, the woman from whom he thought himself free, was his legal wife. The case went from the jus uce's court to the criminal superior court. The material defense of Iompkins was the Reno decree and under this he contended that he was weed from the woman. that she was not his wife and that he was under no legal obligation to support her. All of these facts and circumstances m connection with the Reno divorce were gone into, and material uues- tion was as to the good faith and gen uinenesses of Tompkins' Nevada res 1dence. On the facts disclosed, and from the law of tie case as given by Judge Greene, the jury found Tomp- ktns guilty. On May 29, 1918, Tomp- klns gave notice of appeal from the Judgment and on Sept. 30, 1918, the formal appeal was taken.
 Walter Holcomb, states attorney Of Litchfield county, made a motior to the justices of thes upreme court that the appeal bed ismissed as noth. ing additional to that outlined, haf been done by Tompkins or his law yer in furtherance of the appeal George A. Conant, clerk of the sl1. pFene court, said he had twice writ. ten to MT Addis asking that the re. qu1red bond in connection with tn, appeal be filed by Tornpkfns. Thi is a matter of $1OO, and G1r. Conan said that he had not received a reDl7 to either of his letters The Justices noted that the formal appeal wa taken more than a year ago. The, consulted and announced that tn motion to dismiss was granted. Tht next move will be for States AttOrn Q, Holconb to ask the clerk of the sII 'perior court for a mittimus tha Tompkins can be committed to jai under it to serve the ten months sen tence
 Instead of being committed to 1ai 1t is possible for Tompkins to appea to a judge and ask that instead of be ing committed to Jail under the sen tence of the court that he be give1 the alternative of providing a bon, pay a weekly sum to the woman for definite time, although he con tends that under the Nevada law sh is not his wife. while under the Con necticut law as Judge Greene apple, it his case, she is his wife and tn superir court decision and the lay as interpreted by Judge Greene the law of this state as to the Tomp kins divorce.