The daily gazette., 1879-12-02
From the Philadelphia Press.
k0lstOsl,s Dss.Orce Srtit.


In Common Pleas, No. 1, on Saturday,
Judge Biddle delivered an opipion In the
case Of Ralston VS.. Ra ston, which was q
rule for q divorce, the libellant being the
husband, WHO seeks divorce from his
wife on the ground Of desertioD. 1t ap-
pears that the couple resided in Will
III nglon, Delawa are, and as the husband
was employed in this city he found his
visits to Wilmington irksOme. He ask
ed his wife to come and live in the city,
and she replied that she could not leave
her mother. After waiting two years
the husband never rep ated his request.
He brought suit for divorce, alleging that
his wife had deserted him:
Judge Biddle says: "That the domi-
cile Of the wife is not by implication that
of The hu band where the purpose 10 to
destroy her marital rights was decided
in Bishop vs.. Bishop, 9 Casey, 416; Co
line VS.. REED, =. +. Smith, 375, and
Reed ". Uder, IL p. F. S., 308, aud that
although the law Of the place Of tie ac-
tnal bona fide domicile Of the parties
gives jurisdiction tollhe proper Courts.to
Of both parties, and that nothing but the
posse ssion of the person of The wife be-
fore or at the time OF the proceeding can
warrant another State to subject her to
its jurisdiction. The Injured party must
seek redress IN the forum of the defend
ant unless def ndant has removed from
what was b fore the comm n dCmicile OF
both. The ca g here is almost identical
with that Of Culine VS.. Reed. The hus-
band and wife resided in Wilmington,
Del, he gets employment in Philadel-
phia and finds his return to his home
rksoine and inconvenient. He asks bis
wife to accompany him to Philade iphis
to live. She replies thai she cannot leave
her mother. At the end Of two yea s.
without further comm unication, he ask
| ed 10 be divorce here on the grouEd Of
willful and malicious desertion on heI
part.
AS he had never previously provided q
her at her mothers, he had placed his
wife under obligations to her mother In
addition to those which child owes tt
a parent. IL certainly was natura
ther, fore that she should at least hesti-
late to obey his first summons. His
first summons, however, appears to have
been his last, for he does not pretent
that he ever repeated the request. 1t is
rather stretching a point, theref re, we
think, to hold that this was persisting II
her desertion for two years, even If w
blougi ourselves to the belief that j
was willful and malicious in its incep
ton. The complainant, by his owl
oath, makes out a technical demanC
aud refusal wal his two years, sending
funds to his wife in the meanwhile, am
then in a jurisdic ion foreign to thei
only joint domicile, which he has left
applies for divorce from his wife. IL
questions of divorce case tecbnicall
made out is one not much recommend
ing itself TO our favorable consideration
Hu' bands who are too willing to hav
their iniquities made manifest, an
, wives who acquiesce with such Cheerful
ness in their misfoitunes as to supply
;he necess ,ry evidence to establish then
generally fail to convince us that in th
words of the act of 1915, the application
sis not made out of levty OF collusio
or for the mere purpose of being sepal
ated from each other" If the husban
was willfully and maliciously deserted
he certainly has borne it with wonder
ful philosophy and patience; we thinl
therefore, that even il we had jurisdit
ton over the person OF the wi e, tn
evidence here presented would fail
satisfy lis of her wilful aud maliciol
desertIon without adequate cause ft
the space of two years from her hu
nand. But as the wife never reside
within our jurisdiction, we think in col
trmity to the cases we have cited, I'll
motion should be discharged.