"It
is mutually agreed by the parties hereto that there was a
ceremony of marriage performed between the parties to this
action at Baker City, Oregon, on the 2d day of February
1884, and that said marriage was legal in all respects
unless the same was void by reason hereinafter stated, and
that the plaintiff and defendant lived together as husband
and wife for about four weeks after said marriage, when they
separated, and have not since said separation lived together
or cohabited together as husband and wife; that prior to said
marriage between plaintiff and defendant, the said plaintiff
had been intermarried with one Daniel W. White, and that said
Daniel W. White had, before the date of said marriage between
plaintiff and defendant, instituted proceedings in the
circuit court of Union county, Oregon, to obtain a divorce
from plaintiff herein, in which action the plaintiff herein
defaulted, and did not answer or appear either in person or
by attorney, though personally served with summons, but an
appearance therein was made by the district attorney of the
6th district of Oregon (in which district said action was
pending) as required by the laws of Oregon in such cases, and
that said Daniel W. White obtained a decree of divorce from
the plaintiff herein by the consideration of the said circuit
court of Oregon on the 20th day of November, 1883, the
following being a copy of the journal entry in said cause:
"'Be
it remembered, that at a regular term of the circuit court of
the state of Oregon for the county of Union, begun and held
at the court house in the city of Union, in said county and
state, on Monday, the 12th day of November, 1883, the same
being the second Monday in said month, and the time fixed by
law for holding a regular term of said court, when were
present the Honorable John J. Ballerly, judge presiding, T
C. Hyde, district attorney, W. T. Wright, clerk, R. J
Rogers, sheriff, when on Tuesday, the 20th day of November
1883, on the eighth judicial day of said term, among other
things the following proceedings were had, to wit:
"'Daniel
W. White v. Mary A. White.--This cause having been brought on
to be heard this 20th day of November, 1883, upon the
complaint herein taken as confessed by the defendant, whose
default for not answering has been duly entered, and upon the
answer of the state of Oregon being filed herein, and upon
the proofs taken herein, and upon the report of Charler T.
Hyde, referee in this case, to whom it was referred by order of this court duly made the 12th day of
November, 1883, to take the proof of the facts set forth in
the complaint, and to report the same to the court, and the
said referee having taken the testimony by written questions
and answers, and reported the same to the court on this 20th
day of November, 1883, from which it appears that all the
material allegations of the complaint are sustained by
testimony free from all legal exceptions as to its
competency, admissibility and sufficiency; and it also
appearing to said court that the said defendant and T. C.
Hyde, the district attorney of the sixth judicial district of
Oregon, were duly served with process, and all and singular
the law and the premises being by the court here seen, heard,
understood, and fully considered: wherefore, it is here
ordered, adjudged and decreed, and the court, by virtue of
the power and authority herein vested, and in pursuance of
the statute in such cases made and provided, does order,
adjudge and decree, that the marriage between the said
plaintiff, Daniel W. White, and said defendant, Mary A.
White, be dissolved and forever held for naught, and the same
is hereby dissolved accordingly, and the said parties are and
each of them is freed and absolutely released from the bonds
of matrimony and all the obligations thereof; and it is
further ordered and decreed, that the custody of the minor
children of said marriage, to wit, Thomas E. White, aged
fifteen years, Rocella V. White, aged eleven years, Edward A.
White, aged eight years, and Claudius E. White, aged seven
years, be and the same is hereby awarded to the plaintiff.
"'State
of Oregon, County of Union, ss.: I, A. T. Neil, county clerk
of said Union county, hereby certify that the foregoing
transcript has been by me carefully compared with and is a
true copy and the whole thereof of the original decree
entered in the circuit court of the state of Oregon for Union
county, on the 20th day of November, 1883, in the suit
wherein Daniel W. White is plaintiff and Mary A. White is
defendant, as the same appears in the journal of said court
now in my office and in my custody.
"'In
witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal, this 18th day of November, 1886.
[Seal.]
"And
it is further agreed, that the statutes of the state of
Oregon, edition of 1874, Laws of 1843-1872 inclusive, issued
by the proper authorities of the state of Oregon, and
purporting to be the laws of Oregon and accepted as such, are
in evidence in this case and every part thereof, in so far as
they may affect the validity of said marriage between
plaintiff and defendant, or the capability of the plaintiff
herein to contract said marriage with this defendant
especial reference being had to the following chapters and
sections, copies of which are hereto attached, and herewith
submitted--to wit, chapter 5, section 499, of which the
following is a copy:
"'A
decree declaring a marriage void or dissolved at the suit or
claim of either party shall have the effect to terminate such
marriage as to both parties, except that neither party shall
be capable of contracting marriage with a third person, and
if he or she does so contract shall be liable therefor as if
such decree had not been given, until the suit has been heard
and determined on appeal, and if no appeal be taken, the
expiration of the period allowed by this code to take such
appeal.'
"Chapter VI, sections 525 and 526, of which
the following is a copy:
"'A
judgment or decree may be reviewed as prescribed in this
title, and not otherwise. . . . Any party to a judgment or
decree other than a judgment or decree given by confession,
or for want of an answer, may appeal therefrom. . . . When
the party who has the right to appeal, wishes a statement of
the case to be annexed to the record of the judgment, decree,
or order, he shall, within sixty days after the entry of such
judgment or order, prepare such statement, which shall
contain the grounds upon which he intends to rely upon the
appeal, and so much of the evidence as may be necessary to
explain the grounds and no more, and shall serve a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. . . . If the party shall omit
to make a statement within the time above limited, he shall
be deemed to have waived his right thereto.'
"Chapter
I, section 92, of which the following is a copy:
"'Every
material allegation of the...
