Evening star., 1942-12-24
Nevada Divorces

the Supreme Courts ruling that
North Carolina is bound to accept
the validity of a Nevada divorce
decree serves a useful purpose in
directing attention to the deplorable
state of the law of domestic rela-
tionS in this country.
The case before the court involved
man named Williams and a Mrs.
Hendrix. The Williamses, both North
Carolina people, were married in
that State, lived there twenty-five
years and have four children. The
Hendricks also were married in North
Carolina, and lived there for about
twenty years. In 1910 Mr.. Williams
and Mrs. Hendrix left their homes
in North Carolina and went to
Nevada to get divorces. For the six
weeks necessary to establish what is
considered a bona fide residence" in
Nevada they lived in a roadside auto
camp. Then, through the same law
yer and on almost Identical grounds,
they filed suits for divorces Neither
the wife nor the husband remaining
in North Carolina was served per-
sonally with process in the case, and,
as far as that is concerned, they
might just as we'll have never known
that the divorce suits had been filed
in the distant State. The juStifica-
ton for the divorces may be ap-
praised by the nature of the teSti-
mony given by Mrs. Hendrix land
set out in the dissenting opinion of
Associate Justice JackSon) in support
of her complaint of extreme mental
cruelty" Her husband, she said,
was moody" did not talk or speak
to her "often"; when she spoke to
him he answered most Of the time
by a nod or shake of the head and
there was nothing cheerful about
him at all" The Nevada court
granted the divorces; on the same
day Mr.. Williams and Mrs. Hendrix
were married in that State, and then
they returned to North Carolina to
live.
With these facts available, the
majority opinion, written by Asso-
ciate Justice Douglas, said I'VE must
assume that the petitioners (Wil-
liams and Mrs Hendrix) had bona
fide domicile in Nevada, not that the
Nevada domicile was sham" and
it was to this evasion of the basic
issue that Justice Jackson took en-
phatic exception. Certainly" he
said, I'VE cannot, as the court would,
bypass the matter by saying that
we must treat the present case for
the purposes of the limited issue be-
fore us precisely the same as if the
petitioner had resided in Nevada for
a term of years and had long ago
acquired a permanent abode there
I think we should treat 1t as If they
had done just what they have done"
In refusing to accept this view
(Which has long been the rule in the
DISTRICT the majority Of the court,
In effect, held that the domestic re-
lations law of all the States hence
forth is subject to the divorce law
of Nevada. This means that no
State can protect the marriage rights
of it's residents, nor the rights or
children, if a spouse has the means
to travel to Nevada and establish
brief and fictional residence for the
purpose of obtaining divorce on
the fiimsiest kind of grounds.
In the present case, unfortunately,
the petitioners, upon returning to
live In North Carolina, had been con-
victed of bigamy and were faced with
iail sentences. This would have
entailed an exceedingly harsh pun
ishment, since they had obtained a
divorce that was valid in Nevada,
but, balancing all the factors, 1t Is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that
the Supreme Court, in sparing Will
liams and Mrs. Hendrix, has worked
greater injury to the institution
of marriage as the foundation OF
our society and to the rights Of the
individual States to regulate this and
allied matters within their own
borders.