Hide Article Text (OCR)
Point of Unglh of Kwldrnpe tn the Barton C a»«*—•»nIt AgnlnM JMe-uiooa Building Company.An Important point was passed on byJudge Carter, of the Superior Court, yesterday. concerning residence requirements in divorce proceedings in the case of Louise Barton against Frank Barton, and it mayalso have bearing on other litigants whenthe r.**lde»ce question is Involved. Ths caseis being hotly cont* sted. David Meyers, attorney for Barton, raised the roint of Jurisdiction, claiming that the court had no Jurisdiction In the case because the parties in the suit bad not been residents of Marion county snd the State a sufficient length of time to meet the requirements of the divorce law. The Bartons have been in the restaurant business In Indianapolis for a numllt;«r of years. Recently they went to Chicago to start a restaurant, but returned to the city. Meyers contended that when they left thi* city they ceased to be residents. and since their return have not lived h*re long enough to gain a standing in court.This point caused the issues in the divorcesuit to be dropped and resulted In a lengthyagumeut. Mrs. Barton said they went to dcago for the benefit of their daughter's health and upon the advice of their physician that they move for her benefit. They remained in Chicago but a short time and returned to Indianapolis. L C. Walker, attorney for Mrs. Barton, contended that the move to Chicago was only an experiment, being for the benefit of their daughter's health, and that if her health was not bene-titled to return to Indianapolis.RESIDENCE RETAINED.Judge Carter held that inasmuch as it seemed that the move was only a temporary venture for the benefit of the daughter's health, and that they did not go to Chicago with the intention of locating there permanently, and after a brief stay In Chicago returned to Indianapolis, they had not lost their residence here.The real tight In the case seems to be over the property rights. Mrs. Barton has ali of th*- real '-state In her name. Barton contends that his wife induced him to deed hi r all of his property purchased with money he earned, with the intention of eventually getting a divorce from him andretaining all the property. Barton set up his claim In an answer to the complaint of his wife, but in such pleading Judge Carter held that the property rights could not be Settled. Barton's attorney then asked for the privilege of niing a cross complaint in order to present this cliim to the court. The request was granted and now Barton will have to file a cross complaint and show the court that his wife secured the property with the intention of afterward leaving him.
Newspaper Details
The Indianapolis Journal
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Fri, Sep 26, 1902
Page 8
Full Page
Clipped by
Plainfield P.
IN, USA 18 May 2021
Other Publications Near Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis Daily Sentinel
Indianapolis Republican Convention
Indianapolis Daily State Sentinel
Indianapolis Indiana Democrat
Indianapolis Press
