Putnam patriot., 1926-04-09

seph fhibeault of Hartford. whom she married in Greenville twenty-seven years ago and who divorced her in Putnam in 1923. by a decision of Judge Edwin (. Dickenson handed down Monday. Due to the decision uphold ing the marital status of wife Nc l. wife No. 2, who was Mrs. Pansy Lord | of Hartford, again becomes a single woman.
 Judge Dickenson. in his memeran- dun of decision. finds that in the orig I inal divorce proceeding in 1923 fraud was praeticed upon the defendant and the court and charges that the son, Napoleon Thiheault. committed per l jury when testifying in his fathers divorce proceeding
 The action to have the divorce set aside was tried in Putnam during the week of March %. and the facts brought out showed the marriage of Mir. and Mrs. Thiheault about 1899 and their living together for over twenty years. when the wife left her husband. When Thibeault brought his action of divorce he assured his law yer that he could not find where his wife was living. and order of notice was ordered by publication in a Dan ielson newspaper where the couple last lived together.
 Son Commits Perjury
 During the course of the trial it was shown that the son. Napoleon Thi- beault, corresponded with his mother and had visited her in Greenville and that he was in the lawyers office in Danielson when the father said that he could find no trace of the where abouts of his wife. At the divorce trial young Thibeault, when asked if he knew where his mother was, said that he last saw her in Goodyear. In its memorandum of decision the court says in part:
 Courts Finding
 4'Tha rravamen of the complaint is i that the defendant nfactieed a fraud lunou the plaintiff and the court in i former action wherein the present dv- i frndaut waS plaintiff and the present plaintiff defendant ty falsely repre- septing that he did not know the whereabouts af the then defendant and go securing au order af notice by publication and decree of divorce an the ex parte hearing
 Judge Dickenson then sets out the general statute relative to the precar- l ing service hY order ol notice aHlN af- ter it has been determined that the whereabouts of the defendant is nn- known. and continues
 Tt Is we'll established that A di- vorce cannot be had except in that court which the state authorizes and for those causes only and with those i formalities which if has by statute prescribed And natural jus. tiee requires in all judicial proceed ings notice to the defendant and the right to come into court and mako defense. !"
 A Natural Right
 Further, "as in all litigation. such notice as the circumstances permit IS a natural right. and it's omission is a species of fraud the constructive no- tiee cannot be omitted in these ex parte divorce suits. IL must fill the requirements of the statute whereon it is given. The party applying for it ought. therefore. Co disclose to the tribunal all essential facts; and as far as reasonably practicable the nos tiee should be actual"
 In the instant case notice was had bv publication on order, the order re- citing 1t appearing to and being found bv the sub eribing authority that the defendant is absent from this state gone t0 parts unknown. is, there fore, ordered that notice of the pen dency of said complaint be given by publishing this order in the Nindham County Transcript, newspaper print. ed in Danieison. Connecticut, two weeks successively. commencing on or before the 10th day of October, 1a22 Signed Edgar NJ. Warmer Clerk of the Superior Court for Windham County This order was procured Ion representations made bV tine de. fendant to his counsel and by him to the authority signing that the last known place of abode of his wife was Goodyear. Connecticut. and the fol lowing testimony appears in the trans cript of the testimony in the divorcC action The plaintiff in that action being inquired of, replying as follows
 Testimony Given
 Question: Do you know where shs (the defendantl went from Danielson
 Answer; From Danielson to Good year and lived there year or two. did not know how long. And then lost track.
 Q. Ever heard since?
 4. Never heard since. c. Made inquiries?
 A. I made inquiries to different places. I was told she was, but could n't get track of her.
 O And you haven't got any track of her from the time she left Good year to the present time?
 4. Since she left Goodyear, don't know where she went to.
 O. That is the last you heard of her?
 A. That is the last heard of her
 The plaintiffs son, Napoleon Thi. beault. testified as appears by tho the transcript as follows; II c. How long did you stay at home after your father left?
 A. About a month or month and a half: don't know as I stayed that Hong.
 Q. Ever seen your mother or either sister since?
 A. Once in Goodyear
 c. How long ago7
 A. Just a little while after they moved Co Goodyear.
 Withheld Knowledge