Show SUPREME COURT DIVORCE DE I 1 I 1 I 1 the great divorce case of haddock vs haddock gladdo k which was appealed from the supreme court oi of the tate of new york yorito to tho the united states supreme court and the opinion of the last court which waff handed dowry recently does not seem to have such bucl a widespread aprea a effect as we were lead to believe t fro from m the earlier reports A careful reading read ingot of the decision which now lies before us would seem to indicate that only a few of the states namely now new york new jersey and north and south carolina refuse to recognize divorces granted in other states where one of the parties at the time the divorce was granted was a resident and had been continuously a resident of one of those states we have been frequently frequents y asked what effect this decision would have on divorces obtained in utah where only one of the parties divorce was a resident of tills this state and service was obtained on tho the other by publication only the opinion of the leading lawyers of ogden is to the effect that in any ca sethe divorce Is perfectly legal in tifis this state and where both parties had their their rest dence hero here at any time during the marriage relation and one of them moved I 1 to the state of new york for instance and obtained a residence within sald said state stale and a divorce was g granted ranted to tile the other party in the state of utah after only constructive services had been obtained on the resident of new york in tills this case the courts of new york state would undoubtedly recognize tho the acidity of the utah divorce in the case of haddock vs VB haddock above referred to the parties were married in the state of now new york and the day after the wedding the iho husband moved to connecticut and took up tip his residence there this separ separation separate on seemed to be by nuit mutual ital consent several years later the husband secured it a divorce OR on the grounds of desertion and it would seem that his hie wife still a resident of new york had no notice whatever of this divorce the husband remarried and years later witia with his family returned to now new york and took up a residence haddock prospered in new york the former mrs haddock who still considered herself the lawful wife thought it was about time to make a move on her ter part though many years had bad elapsed since her husban left her the decision says about 30 39 yeara y e a r mrs haddock commenced suit against her husband for divor divorce C e and alimony and brings her action in the state of new york where bat both h now reside haddock by way of defense contends that they are already divorced and sets ets up his connecticut decree obtained by him years before but the court ignored the connecticut decree and said dald that though the divorce might be valid in the state of connecticut it was wag not binding on tho first mrs haddock who in new york state is still his legal wife and a divorce was granted to her and alimony to the amount of per year it will be seen from this statement of facts that the first mrs haddock was a resident of th estate ot of new nev york and always had been and therefore the courts of no other state late r had jurisdiction over her and the opinion of the supreme court of the united states stales confirm the stand she took and tho the opinion cone concludes Judes as follows without questioning the power of the state of connecticut to enforce within its own borders the decree of divorce which is here in issue and without intimating a doubt as to the power of the state of new york to give a decree of that character rendered in connecticut within the borders of the state of new york and as to its own citizens such euch efficacy as it may be entitled to in view of the public policy of that state we hold that the decree of the mccurt of connecticut rendered under tile the circumstances stated was not entitled to obligatory enforcement in III the state stale of new york by virtue of the full faith and credit clause it therefore follows that the court below did not violate the full faith and credit clause of the constitute constitution I 1 on in refusing to admit the connecticut decree in evidence and its judgment is therefore affirmed 11 the kaiser says a big navy brings peace also he e might have added that it brings up the taxes it Is said that a doctor in london has di discovered sc a method of removing scars A boon for retired football players seven woman in ohio claimed s mans fortune efter after ho he was wa S dead d e ad in life they must have caal claimed m ed his coat tall A connecticut club says it has found a cure for snake bite it it will I 1 discover a way by which to prevent some people from seeing them humanity will forever be grateful new york had a clear day with plenty of sun and blue heavens the big city went into ecstacy in that line Ogden ites are wealthy compared with their eastern brothers pull for the U C T As an advertis advert ls ing medium for the city it will be unsurpassed ogden needs the attention that will be given the city by the trav elers it if it succeeds in entertaining them well youth ought to be the storehouse of pleasure from which old age can draw sad indeed Is it when a mans youth rises out of the past to condemn him and more so when that man has been made the recipient of public trust senator burton might have lived a life of honesty and integrity but he early selected the road to self destruction |