Show MONTANA MONTAN DIVORCE r LAW V IS INACTIVE Attorney General Galen Takes Contrary View to Decision of Judge Bourquin I Republican 8 Special Service I helena Helen Mont Sept SO In In an aia j opinion rendered by Gen Gen- oral AI Albert rt J J. J Galen Galell a decidedly contrAry contrary con con- racy view to that of or Ju Judge DOur Bourquin itt is tak Mi who In Interpreting the lu law luV lawIn lawin VIn V In Hut UN held t that Gist the Montana mar a marriage r- r ringe la law pro provides provide de that hat nil oJ guilty dl- dl vir iserson i WhO ho hI remarry within two to yours years are arts guilty of or 8 a aid limy be sent lent to the time penitentiary At Attorney At- At torney General Gall Galen In mm his opinion holds that this section n of or the time codes wo WILE repealed lj lV by It H epochal enactment nt o of the legislature Neither the District court at ut Unite Butte nor imor the attorney general lift gen eral in lIchens Helena however ho e essays to deny that a serious blunder r was made ba by b bya a copyist In iii the I atm who ho made the he enrolled COP copy ot of time the law read that an innocent party JulI to a divorce ma InU manot may not marr marry at all This IB Is Ih LImO Ja law lat n Oi an j shown shon L by the CO copy in iii the secretary ir i f Irate's tate ol and which b beard nr ors the signature of or the time governor orno The Ilme clerk failed ailed to finish the tho section In transcribing TIme The opinion of or the time attorney gems gems- oral orol which was rendered eti In l' l response to 11 a tl request from froam the he county count attorney alter alter- 11 hey ney C at Wiling Billings follows Y You tSU u state stat that you ou have 0 been advising advising ad nd- the lie clerk cerk to to disregard th the eo- eo sc- sc Uon lou of or the time codes touching upon remarriage re rp- I marriage in I issuing licenses e. e on tin tim ground that it appeared that lint It was the thc Intent of or the legislature lature to repeal I Much such section but that you ou have ha noticed no no- I Heet where where- time the judds ot of two District courts have ha held that such section J in is inIn In Iii full Cull force forc and amid effect nn and that y Su u I have hu al also aNo o been Informed that hint ihl thi 1 office ha has hus rendered an opinion opinion- to this effect Too present attorney general ul 1 rendered lcd no such opinion A general has haM rendered an opinion to the ho effect lint thal th the ho section of oC the tho codes referred e to had hull been Iwen repealed re 11 re- re pealed b by J legislative enactment ContinuIng the opinion refers Icell to lo a n Supreme court decision wherein therein It IL was vas hold that a certain section had hadL been L een 1 although the lie title HUe of ot the time bill did not rot show how this C. C Therefore Therefore There There- fore for the attorney one general holds that Ihal until unlit such uch time as ns the time Supreme court has ll upon th tilt the question MUon the time county count attorneys s 's should treat heat the see see- llon J mi as ha been heen repealed This rIIs has hus the of or vitiating the decision which i threatened to create I havoc through the time lUe of ot children transfer fel of ot property and amid the tho like iC |