The Record-courier. [volume] (Gardnerville, Nev.) 1904-current, 1920-12-03
ARGUMENTS IN
P|CKFORO CASE
HEARD

Gladys nj. Moore from her husband,
Owen Moore last May. took place at
Minden Saturday. The action to
set aside the divorce of this famous
movie star, known as Mary Pickford
was brought by Leonard B. Fowler
Attorney General of Nevada.
The Attorney General, two days be-
fore the case came to hearing made
motion that Judge Langan. who
granted the decree to Mary Pickford,
call In judge from another Jurisdiction.
No legal point raised made this step
necessary and the motion was denied
by the presiding Judge. He also fail
ed to state whether or not he will call
in another judge when the case goes
to trial. If he is called as witness,
however, he will call another judge.
Arguments Saturday were on q
motion by counsel for Mary Pickford
to squash the service of summons on
the ground that the court had no
jurisdiction because 1t was served out
side the state.
Calvin McNab, noted San Francico
attorney. opened argument in support
of montion to squash the summons
and took the entire morning session of
court. His argument was directed
to the right of the state to participate
in a divorce action and most of his
time was given over to the merits of
the controversary as established by
the states pleadings
Robert Richards. deputy attorney
general opened argument at the after
noon session, answering McNab on the
right of the state to participate in or
maintain proceedings In actions for
divorce. He cited a long list of
authorities going to show that the
state is directly interested In all suits
for divorce.
The Attorney-General followed and
reviewed the points raised by Nc
Nab. He held that the contention of
McNab that the state has no authority
to bring such a suit and cited decis-
ions TO show that the state acted with
In its legal right In bringing the act
ion to set aside the Pickford decree on
the ground OF fraud and collusiop.
He also took exceptions to points rails
ed In the motion to squash the service
OF summons. arguing that the order of
publication In the states suit was
regular and that the service of sum-
mons was valid.
7. A. McCarran closed the argument
in behalf of Miss Pickford. going over
In detail all the points involved and
reviewing the case from its beginning.
At the completion of argument for
both sides. Judge Langan took the
mater under advisement.
Gavin McNab, attorney for Mary
Pickord contended that the state of
Nevada acted at a mere-intermeddler
when through Attorney General 1t
brought suit to set aside a divorce
granted Mary Pickord from Owen
Moore. McNab told the court that the
case was without precedent In juris-
prudence.
The attempt of the attorney-gen-
eral to make the state of Nevada n
party against two litigants in which
the state has no interest and which
matter the court of Nevada has ad-
Indicated. is without warrant" he
said. Nowhere in the laws of Neva-
da is there anything countenancing
the theory. for the first time now adj
vanced. that the attorney general has
a right Of review of all divorce cases
and has the power to interfere with
the established and orderly processes
OF all courts and disturb their judg-
ment. The fact is that, In the absence
OF statutes to the contrary the inter-
ests OF the state of Nevada in divorce
proceedings Is vested In the courts,
which represent neither the plaintiff
nor the defendant but the state itself
and the action of these courts is nee
essary conclusive and final.
He declared than no one, other than
an aggrieved party. can prosecute an
action. Not being an aggrieved party
the state of Nevada cannot be a real
party in this case" He continued
How can the rights of persons be
secured and the laws of property be
established and maintained or judg-
ments be other than a scrap of paper
II this astonishing suggestion of the
aatorney-general is tolerated?
Surely the state of Nevada with
due regard to public welfare, to the
solemn orderly procedure and dignity
OF courts will not allow any fantastic
fictional plaintiff to thus disturb the
judicial peace. The case, having been
tried and judgment entered and the
time for appeal having expired, the
state of Nevada. through its courts,
has discharged its obligations as a
state and has no further concern with
the subject and the judgment is be-
yond attack"
During the time the case was being
argued hardly twenty persons were
in the court room and the troubles of
Mary Pickford seem no longer to in