The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1922-03-28
CLAIMS BULGARIAN
DIVORCE INVALID
Mrs. HOllis's Attorney Says New Hamp
shire Decree Is In Full Effect Until
Changed BY Court.

Silife Decfee IS HI Il uiI EHect lnTH
Changed BY Court.
CONCORD, n. H., March Esd
ward k Woodworth of Streeter. Des-
mond, SulIoway & Woodwork, personal
counsel for Mrs Grace b. Hollis, who
! insists she has not been legally divorced
from cx-Unitcd States Senator Henry
/ +. Hollis gave out this statement in
his clients behalf last night
THE information through the news
papers that former United States Sen
atcr Hollis had been granted a divorce
| in Sofia. Bulgaria, followed so closely
upon the announcement by his New
! York correspondent that the divorce had
/ been granted in France, came as a COM
/ plete surprise to Mrs. Hollis and her
attorney.
/ THE fact that a court in Bulgaria
/ has granted a divorce to Mr.. Hollis does
not affect the status of Mrs. Grace 3.
/ Hollis as his wife unless he had a bona
! fide domicile in Bulgaria at the time the
divorce was granted. Domicile implies
not only the fact of actual residence,
but also the intention to make the place
his home. Our former statemet as to
the necessity for a bonatide residence in
/ Bulgaria on the part of Mr.. Hollis as
well as that Mrs. Hollis iii some way
must have been made a party TO the
proceedings to make the divorce valid
outside of Bulgaria, Is undoubtedly cor
rect. Notwithstanding the statement OF
Mr. Hollis's New York associate. Some
/ doubt as to Mr.. Moore's familiarity
! with the whole situation is cast by his
confident assertion that Mr.. Hollis had
/ been granted n divorce in France. only
few hours before it transpred that the
divorce had been granted in Bulgaria
Some light bearing upon the ques-
tion whether Mr.. Hollis in good faith
sought Bulgaria as place of bona fide
domicile or merely as the most conven-
/ lent place in which to get a divorce is
\ afforded by Mr.. Moores interesting
statement that When Mr.. Hollis was
/ here two or three months ago we dis
cusSed the possibility of getting a de-
cree in Bulgaria. as well as in Czecho-
( Slovakia. Poland and Russia and that
/ Mr. Hollis probably chose Bulgaria be-
cause the decree could be obtained with
more expedition than in other coun-
! tries
'The question of domicile. so far as
/ the courts elsewhere may be concerned,
\ is by no means settled by the Bulgarian
decree 1t is open to any court in which
! fhc validity of the Bulgarian divorce
might be called into question to decide
/ for itself the question of the good faith
and suffciency of the alleged bulgarian
/ domiciIe.
/ Even if Hollis acquired a bona fide
! dCmicile in Bulgaria, the courts of this
and other countries are not bound To
/ recognize the divorce except upon prin-
ciples of comfy and international law
I The courts in any state in which the
/ question might arse are free 10 deter
/ mine for themselves whether the pro
/ cectliugS have come up to their stand
( ards with respect to notice and also
( whether to recognize the divorce would
/ be consistent with their standards of
/ justice and morality.
The variance between different iuris-
I dictions with respect to what cOnSti-
tutes sufficient notice in a divorce case
/ is common knowledge among lawyers
/ \ decree of divorce granted in a foreign
country. without actual notice or any
| opportunity whatever to the wife to ap-
( pear and defend herself. especially where
( her residence is well known and notice
so easily could have been given, is so
/ contrary to American principles of JUS
/ hce and morality as TO make it prob
able that few. if any. American courts
would consider themselves bound there
by.
In New Jersey. Mrs. Hollis's pres
/ ent domicile, TO give validity to a for
( eign divorce, it must appear that it was
I based upon grounds recognized as Suf-
ficient by civilized peoples, and that
reasonable notice and opportunity to
appear and be heard has been given the
other party interested.
a highly important factor in the
. WnOlt UdlltE Is the LaGI IftdJ IllR New
| Hampshire superior court. in a decision
If undoubted validity, already has de
! termmed that Mrs. Hollis had been
/ wrongfully abandoned by her husband.
which necessarily includes a finding of
absolute innocence on her part. 1t is
our confident opinion that the statement
/ appearing in a New York paper that
the decree of separation granted to Mrs
Hollis in New HAMPSHIRE is superseded
by the Bulgarian divorce and relieves
the husband from any obligation TO sup
port his wife. is a mistaken view of the
law The New Hampshire decree re-
mains in full force and effect until mod
fled by the court which gave it. and
under decisions of the supreme court
Of the United States is entitled to full
faith and credit in every state in the
/ Union.
Further discussion of legal princi-
pies more or less complex would seem
to be unnecessary. 1t is our purpose
merely TO make clear Mrs. Holliss sta
tus and to emphasize the fact that no
conduct on her part justifying a divorce
upon any grounds, no matter how lax
! the requirements of some foreign iuriS-
diction may be. has been found to ex-
ist in any proceedings in which she has
had an opportunity to appear and as
sert her rights.