A. Absolutely.
By the Judge:
"I think I have gone into this question pretty thoroughly. I feel that I should do so in all these matters in view of the fact that our statute requires a six months' residence. Therefore we should look into these matters thoroughly. That is all."
Because of various newspaper items recently published the public has got the idea that the Reno divorce law has been changed. The following article, clipped from the Nevada State Journal of February 2nd, 1921, will explain the change in the laws as amended on that date:
SCOTT DIVORCE BILL PASSES UNAN- IMOUSLY-SENATE BILL PROVIDES THAT PARTY MUST HAVE LIVED IN STATE SIX MONTHS.
"Carson City, Feb. 1.—The Senate today passed the measure introduced by Senator Scott to amend the present divorce law. The bill as drawn re-enacts the law now in force, with the added provision, that at least one of the parties to an action for divorce must have resided in the State of Nevada not less than six months prior to commencement of the suit.
"On recommendation of the judiciary committee, the bill was amended, to make the beginning of a suit possible in cases where "the cause of action shall have occurred within the county while plaintiff and defendant were actually 'domiciled' therein." In a talk urging passage of the bill as amended, Senator Scott declared that at least 90 per cent, of the odium attached to Nevada because of its divorce law was due to the fact that a few unscrupulous persons and attorneys-by means of collusion-so arrange matters as to take advantage of the "Where the defendant may be found" clause. He stated that he feared that unless some change as he proposed was made that people might soon go to that extreme and demand an enactment of legislation much more severe in its requirements. He presented the bill, "not as an attorney, but as a citizen of Nevada to cure what as a citizen he believed to be an evil." The amendments were adopted, and the bill passed, Senator Ducey answering "No," on roll call.
"At the afternoon session of the Senate, Senator Ducey rose to ask a question of privilege, and proceeded to explain his vote by stating that he had failed to get the gist of the amendment. He thereupon requested that the Senate grant him the courtesy of a reconsideration of the vote taken at the morning session. Under the unanimous consent rule, a motion for reconsideration carried, after which the bill was passed with sixteen senators voting in its favor."
[Illustration: Picture of Sir H. Walter Huskey] Following is a letter from H. Walter Huskey, one of Reno's prominent lawyers, in which at my request he answers some very important questions. Much of the information I have already given you in the foregoing pages, but I think it a good idea to give you the questions exactly as answered by him. This information really consists of most valuable legal advice to anyone anticipating a visit to Reno.
Twenty-second October,1920.