said trial resulting in a verdict of not guilty.
The husband contends the wife's complaint for maintenance should be dismissed on the following grounds: (a) That at the time he secured his Mexico divorce he was a bona fide resident of Mexico according to its laws; (b) The decision of the Maryland Court in the bigamy case fully adjudged the validity of his Mexican divorce; (c) the Virginia decree of 1944 is res adjudicata on the question of whether or not he was liable for support and maintenance, and (d) no showing has been made that the income of the wife from sewing work she does which is about $ 70 monthly is not adequate for her support.
The husband was not a bona fide resident of Mexico and therefore the Mexican divorce decree obtained by him is not binding on this Court. Evans v. Evans, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 133, 149 F.2d 831, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 738, 66 S. Ct. 48, 90 L. Ed. 440; White v. White, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 150 F.2d 157. The Maryland Court's finding of not guilty in a criminal case does not settle the question of the validity of the Mexican divorce. As to the contention that the decision of the Virginia Court is res adjudicata on the question of maintenance, Brown v. Brown, 74 App.D.C. 309, 122 F.2d 219, held on similar facts that a suit for maintenance might be allowed after the failure of the wife's cross complaint for divorce and alimony in a previous proceeding. The plaintiff is entitled to an award for her support and maintenance under Sec. 16 -- 415 of the District of Columbia Code.
The husband is ordered to pay to the wife $ 40 per month, payable semi-monthly beginning November 1, 1948. The sum of $ 125 will be ordered paid by the husband to Harry J. Harth, Esq., attorney for plaintiff, said sum to be paid at the rate of $ 25 per month beginning on November 1, 1948. The services of counsel warrant a higher fee, but in my judgment the income of defendant is not ample to justify more than the amount stated.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.