The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1920-11-27
STATE INTERMEDDLER
IN P|CKFO ORD DIVORCE,
HER ATTORNEY SAYS
Argues Motion to Quash
Suit Brought by
Nevada

NfINDEN. New. Nov. 27.-Conten-
ton that the state OF Nevada acted
as mere intermcddler' when.
through Attorney General Leonard
u. Fowler, It brought suit to set aside
"A divorce granted Mary Plckford
from owen Moore was mudo by Miss
pickford's attorney, Gavin McNah.
san Francisco, here toGdy In asking
the district court To quash the suit.
Miss Pickford, who, since her di-
Norce was granted here March 2,
1920, has married Douglas Fairbanks,
was named m l'owlor's suit as
GLADYS NJ. Moore. known MS Gladys
NJ. Fairbanks" Miss Picltford,
Moore and Fairbanks are motion pic
ture stars.
Mr. McNab to.l the court today
that the case was without precedent
in Jurisprudence. THE attempt of
the attorney general TO make the
state OF Nevada u party against two
liigants, in which the state has no
interest and which matter the court
of Nevada has adiudicatod Is with
out warrant he said.
"NO Grounds for Suit"
Nowhere in the laws of Nevada
is there anything countonanclng the
theory, for the first time now ad-
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 ana disturb their judg-
ments,' Mr.. McNub continued.
Mr.. McNab asked II the attorney
general inteuded to participate In the
retrial OF the case II the judgment Is
set aside. rs there any law of Ma
vada that permits an attorney gem
eral to participate In n divorce cnse2"
he asked. III so, why has no attor-
ney general, including the present
one, ever done so?
THE fact that the present active
attorney general has. during his
years Of official authority, Witnessed
hundreds OF divorce cases and has
never participated In the trial OF one
argues conclusively his recognition
that no law permits his meddling In
such trials
Suppose, without law to authorize
and define his participation, the at
torney general should be permitted
by the court TO appear. would he ap-
pear for the plaintiff or the defend
ant? Without statute, who Is to de-
termine? Or is it left to his
caprice?
lied Into Error"
Surely he could not appear for
both, or against both. And certainly
the only parties are the husband and
wife, as. certainly. it cannot bo con-
tended that the state Of Nevada In
the actual trial would be either
plaintim or defendant or even cor
respondent?
THE fact is that, in the absence OF
statutes to the contrary the interests
of the state Of Nevada in divorce pro-
ceedings is vested in the courts.
which represent neither the plaintiff
nor the defendant but the state it.
self, and the action Of these courts
is necessarily conclusive and final.
Undoubtedly, the attorney general
in this proceeding, which Is taken
without statutory authority has been
led into error by references In some
text books and decisions as to the
interest OF the state in divorces. The
is produced by failure to
between abstract interest
which is represented by the courts In
deciding between the litigants and a
material interest which en-
titles person to be plaintin or de-
fendant."
To support his points, Mr.. McNab
quoted decisions ana laws from New
York, Nevada, California and other
states and even referred TO the old
basic common laws.