Daily Republican., 1880-02-19
[FaeM rssrsKSAr's late uspr..
RALSTON VS., RAIsTox

| HUco-UhA n.
preme Court or PonnsyIs
Decide that Mrs. Ralston vs'
Legally ROtinea.
The case Of Robert s. Ralstop 49,.
bis wifs Mary of this city, on MA.
divorce was decided by the srv'
Court Of Pennsylvania on Mpaa
against the petitioner. The blIors
report Of the case is from the p6I,i
phia Ledger" of this morning
Appealsf Robert 3. Ralstou frem \
decree o'CommOn Pleas No. I'll
was suit for divorce brought by
appellant against Mary, his w;ls
the ground upon which the divor..
sought was that Of dessstion. RAM
at the time the proceedings vers
stituled, was resident of the eli,
Philadelphia, and his wife was an
dent of Wilmington, Delaware
subpoena 10 divorce was handed II
Sheriff Of this county, WHO, in t,,
deputed the Sheriff Of New. Castle N
aware to serve 1t upon Mrs. RalstoD
Wilmington.
The libel interrogatories an ths !,
tice OF meeting were all served m,
Mrs. Ralston in this manner, and NJ,
the service thus made testimony
taken and other proceedings had
being claimed that the wife, who Al
time appeared before the examinsrh
by the service thus made upon
been brought within the jurisdic,iop
the Court. The testimony before
examiner, which was mainly that oft
husband, was to the effect that in IN
Robert s. Ralston was married IL
present wife. He was at that tins
officer in the United States marina 1.
vice, and, as be had no fixed abode
wife continued to live with her moth
in Wilmington, Delaware.
Mr.. Ralston continued in the seri
nearly five ye srs, visiting his wife i,
living with her whenever he was
shore during that period. He wa, u1
tered out of service In 1870, and Il
several years without employment.
1872 he procured work with the Re.
ing Railroad Company, but, owia,
his duties in that corporation, ives d
able to visit his wife very often,
during the whole period Of bis serv
in the marine corps, and sabssqls
thereto, he remitted to his wife I'D
larly about $40 month. Preyiou,
bringing the present suit in divorce
made a request of his wife to leave NJ
mington and come to live with Lin
Philadelphia.
She refused to do this, whereupon
brought the present suit for diVa
upon the ground OF desertion.
Court below held tha. the servis
the papers on the wife was entirely
to bring her within the jat
liction of the Court, and that moreoT
upon the facts presented, no gfou
sufficient to establish that desertion
luisite to entitls the husband tea
Vorce had been established by the
laHcp. II therefore refused to gfi
he divorce prayed for, particularly
t was d question whether the Col
1t any rate, had jurisdiction ID
,sse like the one at issue, where
Tife's residence was outside of the s..
ind the husband might merely b
,ome into the State for the purp@s
Ievering his marital relations. n
'uling was assigned as error by
Ralstop, who brought the case 10
supreme Court, contending thai
court below clearly had jurisdjdil
md that sucl q state of facts had b
hOwn by the evidence as to enti.le
appellant to the divorce prayed for
The Supreme Court in making up
lecision says "We know no author
OF a Sheriff in this State to depuh
'herif III another State to execlts
7rit in the bailiwick Of the latter 20
0 give to it the effect of personal
ice. 1t was by such an invalid sefV
hat the libellant claims to hs
rought the respondent within the
isdiction OF the court, and then mos
n bis own evidence. An examinsti
the evidence also shows that
ourt was right in refusing q di7oo
n the merits Of the casa, there has
con shown wilful and malicious
srtion."
Mrs. Mary Ralston the lady retorf
resides on the easterly side Of JEDI
u between Twelfth and Thirtes1
rapta