Andrew Carson vs. E. Carson, from Kingman county; divorce.
(Barber County Index ~ Wednesday ~ May 30, 1888 ~ Page 3)
The divorce case of Carson vs. Carson from Kingman county, tried here this week, brought to light a man who has two living and lawful wives. The man Carson, plaintiff, was married to a woman in Ireland and came to this country with her and resided several years, when they returned to Ireland. There he left her and came to this country and, without her knowledge, sued for and obtained a divorce in Kingman county, and three years ago married wife No. 2, with whom he has since been living. Wife No. 1 learned of the divorce proceedings and came to this country, and going before the district court of Kingman county, had the divorce set aside, she showing that Carson had misrepresented the facts to the court in his petition. That left Carson with two wives. He filed a new petition and the case came here on chage of venue. Attorney Steck, of Kingman, represents the defendant, and E. Sample and A. J. Jones appear for the plaintiff.
(Barber County Index ~ Wednesday ~ October 17, 1888 ~ Page 3)
HARD FIGHT FOR DIVORCE
Interesting Case From Kingman County
A divorce case, involving a very stubbornly fought point of law, was tried before Judge Dale in the district court yesterday, and although Judge dale rendered a decision promptly, his decision has not yet settled the point to the satisfaction of several attorneys. The case is a divorce proceeding brought by Mrs. Emma S. Hodgson against her husband, R. W. Hodgson, in the district court of Kingman county. The divorce carries with it a large anount of property and the custody of four children, and was bitterly fought from the start. It is brought here on a change of venue on a motion to set aside the judgment rendered by Judge Price, as judge pro tem for Judge Gillette, in favor of Mrs. Hodgson. Judge Price was appointed by Judge Gillette to try the case, and the attorneys for the defense objected to the judgment rendered for the reason that Judge Price was not a resident of the district, and not legally qualified to try the case, therefore, they contend, the judgment has no weight in law and should be set aside. The case before Judge Dale was splendidly handled by the attorneys, who were George L. Hay and J. Q. Jenkins of Kingman, resisting the motion, and C. B. Hardy of Kingman and S. S. Ashbaugh of this city supporting it. Judge Dale ruled against the motion, but it is very likely that the attorneys for Mr. Hodgson will take the case to the supreme court. Judge DAle could not very well render any other kind of a decision, it is said, for the reason that he had been called out of his district to try cases, and it would be poor policy to render an opinion against himself. Mr. Ashbaugh and Mr. Hardy set up the claim that no judge has a right to appointn a judge pro tem to try a case unless the judge pro tem be a citizen of the district in which the case is tried or is chosen by the bar. They say it is unreasonable to believe that a judge can go to the Philippines to find a judge pro tem to try a case, and that Judge Gillette in going out of the district to select a judge pro tem did an act which is not supported by the statutes.
(Wichita Daily Eagle ~ Thursday ~ April 12, 1900 ~ Page 5)