vv'" ."cA'A. j ' ' ftl,,,' ',N ' " ;-'x
gr A(.; VA'' A .v r"i- '.A V yj- - ilS V- '."J.4i
r i ;v - Ski
. I - - . -
" ' , ) C' - t ' ,
- !': - x f s
k j '' " ' ' ' y " s ' r" ' ' ' ' 7, -1t ' '' 'V
i -' - - - - ' 5 ' A f X --'X
v " f;' - 5 ' A 4 A V x - v V '
- 1?
Aft., y.-i-:;''
1 'TTTSSr
.Just Like a Stage Setting in "the Movies" the Magnificent Panorama of Wild Mountains in the Back
ground and the Little Campbell Ranch at Their Foot, Where Mary Pickford Took Up Her Residence
and Started Her Nevada Divorce Suit Against Her Husband, Owexf Moore.
"Mr. Merrltt, the defendant, came into
the State and was served -with, process.
The appeal was taken for the purpose of
settling the question for the guidance of
the trial judges. By a unanimous bench
the Supreme Court ordered the decree to
he entered forthwith. These decisions by
the Supreme Court of Nevada and "Others
of like Import are based squarely upon the
law as it has been written in more than
one Jurisdiction In the United States, and
these decisions have followed the ruling
case law of the land. As Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Nevada I -wrote the
opinion of that court in the case of Merrltt
against Aferritt and participated In the
other decisions rendered upon the subject.
"I represented Miss Pickford In present
Ing her application f Or divorce. ; Summons
was dtily served upon the defendant, Mr.
Moore, within the jurisdiction. The case
was tried in open court, both sides being
represented by their respective attorneys.
Tlw plaintiff was subjected to a long and
searching cross-examination by the pre
siding judge himself, during which he re
ferred to the several decisions of the Su
preme Court and directed his interroga
tories accordingly. At the conclusion of
the hearing the court entered its order
that the decree be granted forthwith.
"And during all ,of the proceedings the
Judge was fully aware of the identity of the
party who was on the stand and her na
tional and world-wide reputation. In rep
resenting Miss Pickford I placed her case
squarely on the laws of Nevada. I stand
behind the decree of divorce granted to
Miss Pickford, and in support of that de
cree I placed and refer to the law as ren
dered by the court of last resort In the
State of Nevada, of which I was the pre
siding officer. The decisions of the Su
preme Court of Nevada rendered on the
subject of divorce have been Quoted from
and cited approvingly by some of the
greatest authorities on the subject In the
world. '1
"Politics. Jealousy,
Publicity?"
"Of all of the hundreds of divorces that
have been granted in the several jurisdic
tions in the State of Nevada it appears
strange that the Pickford decree should be
the one selected for the most peculiar test
to which a judgment of a court of com
petent Jurisdiction has ever (been sub
jected. This is probably due to the world
wide notoriety of the great screen artist.
It Is quite safe to Bay that if politics, jeal
ousy and desire for publicity were elim
inated from this matter there would be
nothing left. ! ;
"The decree of divorce granted to Miss
Mary Pickford stands for its authority
upon the law of the land and upon de
cisions rendered by the Supreme Court of
the State in which that decree was given.
It will stand the test of any court In. the
world. I propose to defend it to the bitter
end upon the broad foundation of the law
as It has been written. The Pickford de
cree requires no other defense." i
"Will you advise your client, Mary Pick
lord Fairbanks, to return to Nevada to
testify?- . :
"I decline to answer that question,"
Judge McCarran replied. j
And thus, as printed above, is presented
Mary Pickford's side of the case. It would
seem to be her lawyer's contention that
only one thing mattered did or did not
his client, Mrs. Moore, start a divorce suit
, In Douglas County and serve papers on
the defendant, Mr. Moore, as the law re
quired? If so, then never mind what "Our
Mary swore abort her Intention to reside
in Nevada, and it is of no consequence
whether Mr. Moore did or didn't drop Into
the county for a few hours at the oppor
tune moment Just to oblige his wife. In
other words, if the technical steps were
taken In compliance with the law the
charges of perjury, conspiracy and fraud,
even If proved true, cannot upset the
divorce. I
These are Interesting contentions, and, if
her attorney is right, Mary Pickford has
nothing to worry about.
The Rev. Dr. Levy points out that the
great fact of serious importance is whether
this unhappily united couple should be
freed of the bands which tied them to
gether. Mary Pickford's testimony showed
from the very first hours of their married
life that she was defrauded of almost
everything which a bride had a right to
' expect in the way of kindness, considera
tion, devotion and respect from the man
she had Just married.
She forgave and again and again tried:
- to win her husband back to her. It was
" Imposslble: -he left her, humiliated her.
v Judge Langan had no doubts of the
truth of Mary Pickford's dismal picture
of her matrimonial sorrows. Owen Moore
' made no effort to deny the truth of any
thing his i wife said. Judge Langan In
stantly decided that Mary Pickford should
be freed from such a bondage.
. But of all this evidence of the Impossible
; situation between ; Owen Moore and his
wife the Attorney-General says nothing.
He does not dispute a word of Miss Pick
ford's testimony of her neglect, abuse, in
sults and, desertion. Apparently the abun
dant grounds that were established without
dispute for freeing Mary Pickford from
such a husband are of no importance. The
technical question of the complainant's
residence and whether Owen Moore hap
pened into the State by accident or ar
rangement with his wife: these are things
of vital importance In Attorney-General
"In the Pickford caBe," said the Attor-.
ney-General, "there Is quite a- general mis
apprehension on the part of ft large num
ber of people as to the real legal situation.
It is this ignorance of the law which leads
to the remark, "Why pick on Mary Pick
ford?' Over 99 per cent of the divorce
decrees granted in the State of Nevada
are founded as to jurisdiction on a resi
dence of the plaintiff for a period of six
months or more. Ostensibly, at least, the
residence Is legitimate. Therefore, an ap
parent Jurisdiction exists which would in .
most instances be difficult for the State
to overturn. i s
Was There Violation
of Law?
"""There have been few decrees wanted
In this State in cases that any wise re- by counsel "who represented Mary Pick-
las County wherein there appear to be
facts to support the suspicion of collusion
as to jurisdiction. The two cases men
tioned are the only ones relative to collu
sion as to Jurisdiction that have ever oc
curred In Douglas County, which county
has been In existence ever since Nevada
was admitted to the Union in 1864. '
"Another case where the facts may be
somewhat similar has been mentioned to
me where a decree was granted in Rdno.
As to the latter 08864 the facts in my pos
session are ven''
meager. . II I am
able to procure suf
ficient evidence to
establish collusion"
as to Jurisdiction in
the two cases men
tioned, or any other
cases where the
evidence Will sup
port an action to
annul,-1 will Insti
tute proceedings to
set aside the de
crees just as I have
done in the Pick
ford case.
"Never a
Resident of
Nevada."
"Mary Pickford
has never been a
resident of the State
of Nevada, and
neither has Owen
Moore. She claims
that she was pres
ent, In the State
three weeks prior
to the granting of
the decree, but all
' the surro u n d i n g
facts a b s o I utely
nullify any theory
f residence on her
."part. The Tiede
mann case, so com
monly referred tc
'A A
y.,.: if,
' i.
' x 4
wu "S s A''s - '77 '
1
A, v
A
' '(
' i
Out Mary75 Piclcf ord, WHo Does Not rSiow With Certainty Whether She is the Wife of DouglaT
t , A. - Fairbanks or Owen Moore A.
semble that of Mary Pickford. This Pick-
ford easel stands out as one particularly,
flagrant ta law violation. Some people
seem to Imagine that because of the prom
inence of the actress any wrongdoings on
her part should be justified or condoned.
In their attempt to support this conten
tion, they assert that she has been singled
out from all other persons who have ob
tained decrees in Nevada as the 'subject
for attack. -
"I, as Attorney-General, urge and Invite
such people to furnish me with facts that
. establish the existence of any divorce de
cree granted in this State upon a similar
state of facts as exists in the Pickford
' case, , and especially any such1 case that
has occurred since January, 1919, when
I became Attorney-General of .the State.
This is the only case that so aroused the
people of Nevada that it met with the uni
versal disapprobation and denunciation of
the press of Nevada and the passage of a
resolution by the Reno Bar Association
calling upon the Attorney-General to in
stitute proceedings to have the decree ad
judged a nullity.
"A case so flagrant and outrageous
placed the Attorney-General in a position
where he would have been, guilty of con
temptible: and condemnaible violation of
duty If he had declined to file the neces
sary action praying to set aside the de
cree. The only case ever presented to my
department prior to filing the complaint
to annul the Pickford decree during the
time I have been in office, wherein there
has been ; any contention that there has
been collusion fo'r the purpose of endeav
oring to create Jurisdiction, is the Pick
ford case. Since the filing of the com
plaint in the Pickford case my attention
has been called to another case in Doug
ford in her, divorce proceedings, and by
others, as supporting and Justifying the
Pickford decree, as a matter of fact, does
the contrary. In that case Mrs. Wiede
mann, while residing with her cnlld at
Carson City, was surprised by her hus
band, who came to that city for the pur
pose of getting possessing of their child,
with the evident intent of taking the child
.from the jurisdiction of the State of Ne
veda, wherein Mrs. Tiedemann was then
residing, and placing the child In another
Jurisdiction. . ,
"Necessarily, Mrs. Tiedemann was in a
position where she had certain rights that
she could call upon the courts of the State
of ; Nevada to protect She therefore,
through ;her attorney, filed an -action for
divorce alleging that her husband could
be found in Ormsby County, State of Ne
vada. The bitter, contest between Mrs.
Tiedemann and her husband renders im
possible any theory of collusion between
the parties. It is the clearest kind of a
case where there was not any collusion of
any kind. The Supreme Court of the
State of Nevada in that case held that
jurisdiction could exist in a case present
ing such a state of facts in the absence of
collusion.
"In the later case of Wade vs. Wade the
court emphasized the legal principle that
collusion must not exist to warrant the
" granting a decree."
So, thus are presented both sides of the
controversy. - Judge McCarran. Mary
Pickford's lsrwyer, says there is nothing of
consequence In any or all of the charges
made by Attorney-General Fowler and, in
deed, whatever might seem to be important-points
have been already considered
(O 1S20, XntexMttooa. Feature Serrlca. Xno.
by the Supreme Court of the State and
decided against the Attorney-General.
And Attorney-General Fowler replies
that the Pickford case is "flagrant and
outrageous" and that nowhere has the Su
preme Court of Nevada approved such
facts as surround the Pickford case, but,
on the contrary, the court has explicitly
insisted that a divorce decree must not be
granted where collusion exists.
Who is right?
If Mary Pickford's lawyer is right, then
the Attorney-General is wasting a lot of
time, and annoying "Our Mary" to no pur
pose. " If Attorney General Fowler is right, then
the present Mrs. Douglas Fairbanks may
.find .herself Mrs. Owen Moore again a
distressing and cruel misfortune.
It takes two to make a quarrel, and
similarly there are two parties, of course,
in every legal dispute. : When Attorney
General Fowler filed his complaint ask
ing to have the Pickford divorce annulled
he looked about for 'the defendant, Mary
Pickford, to serve notice upon.
But Mary Pickford Is now Mrs. Douglas
Fairbanks, living in Southern California.
The long arm of the Nevada courts is un
able to reach beyond the border of the
State of Nevada to serve notice on Mary
Pickford and demand' that she come back
Into the State to answer the suit.
Finally, application was made to Judge
Langan, : who heard the divorce suit, to
issue an order that Mary Pickford might
be served by publication' Instead of by
actual 'service upon "Our Mary herself.
Judge Langan Issued the order and di
rected that notice and summons , be print-,
ed for six weeks in a Minden newspaper.'
Mary Pickford will have forty days to
answer, after the summons is published
Great Britain Bichta Beaerred.
and her attorney declares that he will take
full time allowed him.
The exact wordss the published sum
mons begin thus: , .
"The State of Nevada Sends Greetings
to Gladys M. Moore, known as Gladys M.
Fairbanks, and O. E. Moore, known as
Owen E. Moore, Defendants.
"You are hereby summoned to appear
within ten days after the service upon you
of this summons if served in said county,
or within twenty days if served out of said
county but within said Judicial District.
J 1 All fVitw tnrtv Ho
O.UU 1U .U MVU VM nuw w.v ... I- v XT -.- u v-
if J ??Kr LJZlrZ' n1 arisen since the attack upon the divorce
oecr ee xrr u Attorney-General of the
plnees of Mary Pickford and her husban&
Douglas Fairbanks. All their plans ars
unsettled and their contemplated honey
moon trip to Europe has been given up.
"Our trip to Europe has been called off,"
Douglas Fairbanks said. "We had reser
vations on a steamer to sail from New
York on May 29th. Our trip abroad has
not been abandoned. It is just deferred.
Just how long It will be deferred we do
not' know. We hope to make the trip
sooner or later.'
Dfuglas Fairbanks and his wife have
bothf avoided discussing the unpleasant
fend the above-entitled action.'
Meanwhile, a somewhat similar case is
drifting along in the Nevada courts. Wil
liam H. Sheldon, an attorney, is charged
with subornation of perjury in a divorce
hearing. Sheldon declares that there can .
be no collusion for the purpose of estab
lishing Jurisdiction for a divorce action
because, that point, : the collusion, is not
a material issue. Sheldon claims that
the real merits of a divorce action are
as to whether or not there are proper
reasons for separating the husband and
wife and that, therefore, false evidence
on the question of residence of either of
the parties or jurisdiction of the judge is
no material Importance. - v
This, of course, is exactly this-point in
volved in the Pickford case. Attorney
General Fowler charges that Mary PicV
ford and Owen Moore Were In collusion
to pretend to establish residence in Ne
vada and thus create a false jurisdiction
for. the Nevada courts.
And while the Nevada prosecuting
authorities are busy trying to upset
the divorce a cloud of sorrow and un
certainty hangs over the borne and hap-
Statp. They admit, however, that the de
ferring of" the honeymoon trip to Europe
is because of the uncertainty of the situs
tlon in Nevada.
Notice has been served on theta by
publication of the proceedings, as already
Stated, but it ii lmnlnnd that Mar
Pickford has been advised to pay no at
tention to the summons from Nevada. It
is expected that she will disobey this and
stay away from the State. But It is said
by close friends that Miss Pickford would
like to go to Nevada and make a fight for
her rights It is thought that her lawyer,
however, Tas told her that her interest
can be fully safeguarded without the
necessity of her being subjected to
personal annoyance by being put upon the
witness stand and . asked unnecessary
questions. ,
How will U all end?
Like the movies that "Our Mary" plays
In, will the clouds roll by and everything
torn out happily in the last reel? At this
moment she is - anxious and distressed
will the charnuag Pickford smile cam
back 4 gain in the last act?