Evening star., 1945-10-14

their Reno divorces, but the Judge after
correctly instructing the jury that the
Reno divorce need not be recognized IL
the jury found that the defendants had
not been citizens of Nevada, went fur
ther and enormously instructed the jury
that even if the defendants had been
citizens of Nevada the divorces were not
entitled to recognition If granted on
constructive services of process against
the nonresident spouses of the defend
ants. The jury found the defendants
guilty, and the Supreme Court of the
United States reversed the conviction
and sent the case back to be tried over
upon the sole ground that the court
enormously had instructed the jury In
the manner above stated.
Divorce Not Held Valid.
1t was perfectly obvious that the SUI
preme Court did not hold the Nevada
divorces before it to be valid and merely
sent the criminal case back for further
proceedings upon proper instructions,
1t also went to unusual pains to spell
out just what it was doing on the limited
issues before it in order to prevent any
misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the de-
cision most unfortunately resulted in the
widespread misconception that all Reno
and similar divorces had been held to
be Sacrosanct. Even in the District of
Columbia one judge refused a woman
the right to present evidence to prove
that her husband had obtained fraud
ulent divorce in Reno, where he was not
domiciled. Throughout the country
generally confusion arose and the at
tempts to maintain the validity of the
products of the divorce market States
multiplied
While all this was going on, the Will
hams case had gone back to North Car
olina, the defendants had been given q
new trial on the charge of bigamous CO.
habitation, the judge had this time cor
rectly instructed the jury that 1t need
not recognize the Nevada divorces If the
defendants had not been citizens of that
State at the time they obtained the di-
vorce, and the jury found them guilty
for the second time. The case worked
its way back to the Supreme Court Of
the United States, and on May 81, 1945,
in what is now called the second Will
liams case, the convictions were af.
flrmed. There is no inconsistency be-
tween the decision in the first williams
case and the decision in the second
Williams case.
BY its recent refusal to consider any
more appeals involving the validity of
divorces, the Supreme Court apparently
has served notice that it considers this
latest furry with respect to the divorce
law to be at an end.
Question of Fact.
The difficulty confronting the courts
in deciding the validity of a divorce Is
not one of law, but one of fact in de.
termining whether or not the person
who obtained the divorce was citizen
of the State where he obtained it. This
is often highly involved and technical
question, but suffice it to say that If q
person leaves home and goes to another
State merely for the purpose of staying
there long enough to get divorce and
then to return home, he does not be-
come citizen of the State granting
the divorce and the divorce is void.
Every divorce, If regular on It's face,
is presumed to be valid and must be
given full faith and credit unless and
until it is found to be invalid in some
subsequent court proceeding and the
person asserting the invalidity of the
divorce must establish by strong and
convincing evidence the facts necessary
to show that the person who obtained
State where it was granted. This Is
often difficult or impossible to do, but
most persons who travel in a hurry
to the divorce-market States, Nevada.
Florida, and Arkansas, leave such broad
tracks that their mental processes as to
domicile are pretty clear.
If your neighbor suddenly left home,
went to Reno and after staying there
in a hotel the minimum period of six
weeks required by the Nevada law
commenced suit for divorce, and
after getting the divorce he imme-
diately came back home and resumed
working at his old job, would you believe
permanent resident there or that he
was just travelling long enough to
get a divorce? If you think he was
just travelling, the judge would prob
ably think so too, and hold his divorce
to be invalid.
It so happens, however, that most
Of the Reno and similar divorces are
obtained by one spouse with the agree
ment and active cooperation of the
other, who, to facilitate matters, signs
papers submitting himself to the juris-
diction of the divorce court and lets
1t be known that he does not object
to the divorce. A divorce obtained
in this manner by one who is not a
citizen of the State where obtained
Is in legal theory invalid, but as a
matter of law 1t is permitted that
such divorces be challenged only in
certain limited ways and as matter
OF practice they rarely are challenged
and If so 1t is seldom that suficient
evidence can be produced to overcome
the presumption of validity. If hus-
band and wife agree to be divorced.
there seems to be no effective way to
stop them from going to one Of the
divorce-market States for the divorce
desired, and regardless of technical
legal theory most lawyers have come
to regard theoretically invalid divorce
which must by law be presumed to be
valid until declared void, but which
probably never will be challenged much
less proved to be invalid, to be about
as good for all practical purposes as