The Washington times., 1920-04-09
P|CKFORD LAWYER
DEFENDS DIVORCE
Decree Given Film Star viii
Stand Any Test, Says For
mer Chief Justice.
CONTINUED from First Page)

CONTINUED from First fase'l
plaintiff was referred TO the defend
ants attorneys for crOss-examination.
The presiding Judge OF the court
then engaged In an extended snd
seasching inquiry touching upon
every phase of the case. i suggested
TO the Judge the propriety OF this ac-
tion on his part. Findings or fact
were presented TO the court by the
presiding Judge and nled OF record In
the case. The decree OF divorce was
granted and signed by an
SO far as ! could obserVW1' pe-
iieve so far as any court could OBJ
serve, there was no attempt at either
fraud or collusion. The case ana lts
entire proceeding takes its authority
from and rests squarely on at least
four decisions OF the supreme court
OF Nevada.
Cite. TisSemsa Case.
"In the case of Tiedeman vs. Tiede-
man. 1877 Pacific. page s34. the court
determined that under the particular
provisions OF our statute the action
might be Instituted in any court In
the State in which the defendant
might be found, and In this respect
the court decided that under this
provision OF the statute the time OF
residence OF the plaintiff was imma-
terial.
'In the case of Presson VS.. Presson
1877 Pacific. page los, the Tledemah
case was referred to approvingly.
The case OF Merritt VS.. Merritt was
appealed from the district court AT
Reno for the purpose of determining
a plaintiffs right to divorce under
circumstances and conditions identi-
cal to those OF the Pickford case. The
opinion of the supreme court OF Ne
vada In this case was written by my
self as chief Justice and handed down
by a unanimouA bench. The court
there held that under such state or
facts on the authority OF the Tiede-
man case the decree of divorce should
have been granted. The district
court. from whence the appeal had
been taken. appointed most able
counsel to act as friends OF the court
in presenting a petition for rehear-
ing. and in that l again wrote the
opinion of the court, the same being
by a unanimous bench. At the con-
ciusion a mandatory writ was en-
tered directing the court below to is
sue the decree forthwith.
'Tn the case of Wade VS.. Wade. l73
Pacific, page 553, the Tiedeman case
was again referred to approvingly.
Legtsiature fosseO Law.
These decisions were in applica-
ton and construction OF the specifc
provisions of the statutes of Nevada
relative to divorce, and in this respect
1t may be remembered that the legis-
lature Of Nevada in 1911 enacted a
statute which provides, in part, that
Legal for the right of a party to
maintain or defend any action Is that
MI x.yha ho ShQ shall have been
actually, physically and corporally
present within the State or county, as
the case may beA during all the period
for which residence is claimed by him
or her. This act was construed and
applied and upheld in the case of
Presson VS.. Presson.
ITO say the least, am surprised
that comment should have come from
such sources as 1 find it, especially
when / notice an interview given by
the senior associate justice of the su-
preme court of Nevada. i am not
ready to believe that he has forgotten
the fact that he participated in the
decision in the cases OF Merritt VS..
Merritt and Wade VS.. Wade, to which
decisions I have referred
II am not advised as to the present
action Of the attorney general OF Ne
vada, but my estimates of that officer
and his worthy deputy. whose name~l
find in the public press, and my knowl-
edge of his splendid ability leads me
to say that he will agree that the
Pickford case stands on precedent and
authority.
Case 4. One OF Many
THE case of Miss Mary Pickford, in
which a decree OF divorce was granted
by Nevada court, is but one of many
of like conditions where DEGREES have
been granted for the courts of that
and other States. / take IL that II is
by reason of the worldwide fame of
cnuN0