New Britain herald., 1928-02-10
7ORL0NlA DUCHESS
 GRANTED DIVORCE
Former GrsnVih Society Girl
 Is Frood From Italian Duke
HAD SENSATIONAL TRIAL

hhU OhNOAllVNhL lklhL Duke Fought Case on Grounds Con.
 nocttcut Courts Dh Not Have
 Jurisdtction as She Was Italian
 Subject.
 Bridgeport. Conn.,. Feb. 10 R- The Duchess of Torlonia. who was Elise Moore. of Greenwich, Conn. was granted . divorce from Duke Marine Torlonia, of Rome. Italy. today.
 The decision was given by Judge John Richards Booth of the super for court before whom the action was tried early in December.
 The Duchess based her petition on the allegation that the Duke had been guilty of misconduct. The an- swer of the Duke was that the courts of this state were without Jurisdiction.
 The petition was heard after post ponements of the case which cover ed q period of many months and during which the Duchess regaineJ her American citizenship which she lost by marriage to the Duke. As to this action on her part counsel for the Duke made the assertion in court that the Duchess committed a fraud against the Italian courts. against the immigration commission CTS and against tho United States court when she reeained her citizen- ship.
 Counsel for the Duchess during presentation Of evidence to support tho charge that the Duke had beeh unfaithful during his marital life as- serted that the latter was a tyrant who had broken all laws of common decency and had Haunted his im- moral escapades in the face of hm wife and children
 Counsel for the Duke in retort described Duchess Torlonia as . "cold. calculating, selfish woman whA would stop at no end to gain what she wanted"
 The hearing turned mainly on the legal status of the Duchess to bring her action in a state court and clos ing the hearing on December :: Judge Booth ordered both sides to submit brtefA
 In the text of the decision Judge Booth said in part: "Ths defendant contends that the evidence failed to show misconduct on his part. I con- sider on the contrary that 1t does show 1t, particularly in view of the fact that tho defendant, although siven ample opportunity has failed to offer any evidence either denying it or explaining his conduct.
 Tho defendant further contends that under the. somewhat peculiar law of Italy. what he has done does not constitute misconduct owing to its lack of notoriety. It is well set tied that the place of the misconduct does not affect the courts jurisdic- tion. which obtained by the domi- cile of ono or both of tho parties. Even If the law were as claimed by him, the evidence given in the depo- sitions shows that his relations with Maria Lorenxtni had been notorious. The remaining question is whether the plaintiff has established . dom- icile within the jurisdiction of the court. There can he no doubt that she was in this state at time of her marriage. Has she returned here with the intention of permanently remaining here by acquiring . domicile, and has she the power to do 60 separately and apart from her husband? 2"
 Tho court said 1t was satisfied that the duchess established . domicile. She came to this country in July, 1928 with her children, . few months later went back to Italy to get the duke to agree to . separation, and in December. 1925. she came back to this country and had made it her home ever since indicating "an in- tention to make it (the state) her 
 The duchess is given her children, Christina and Marino.
 It is unknown as yet whether there will be an appeal from Judge Booths decision. During the trial it was indicated that the losing side would take an appeal. MT. Calhoun. counsel for the duke said that he would first have to consult his client before determining what further ac- ton, if any, might be taken.