The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1899-02-15

Can q man lose citizenship by Temporal
ry absence from the State in The
Volunteer Service of his country in
a time Of War-Judge Mason decides
that he cannot in an attachment case
against a member Of the First Regi-
ment-An interesting decision.
A novel question was recently de-
cided by John w. Mason, sitting as
judge of the circuit court Of Harrison
county.
Ii. e. Vance, who was in business
at Clarksburg, and who was an old
resident of that county enlisted in the
First West Virginia Infantry last May
and left the state with his regiment
Last November one of the creditors
of Mr.. Vance had an attachment is
sued and levied ON his store in Clarks-
burg, charging that Vance was a non
resident of the state.
Vance contested the attachment on
the ground that he was not a non
resident when attachment was issued
The questions of law and fact were
submitted to the court. The plain
lift relied on the fact that Vance left
the county and state last MAJ, as "a
soldier. having enlisted for two years;
that he went with his regiment out
of the state and remained out of the
state; that he was single man and
was boarding at hotel when he en-
listed and that there was at the time
of the issuing Of the attachment no
person upon whom, or place at which
process could be served upon said
Vance in this state; that leaving the
state under such circumstances and
remaining away with possibility of
being kept away for two years, made
him in law non resident within the
meaning of our attachment laws.
The court held that Vance was not a
non. resident, and abated the attach
ment.
In chancery case against Vance,
and upon the same state of facts up
on motion to quash the order Of
publication against Vance, Mr.. Mason
said:
"The defendant, G. T.. Vance APP
peared for the purpose, and for that
purpose only, of abatiDg or quashing
order of publication in this cause, al
| leging that he was not at all the time
of the institution OF this suit, and
has not been at any time since nom
resident of this state. The court has
| heard the proof and is Of the opinion
that the said Vance was not q nom
resident at the time of the institution
of this suit, and is not now, and has
not been at any time since this suit
was commenced, a nonresident of
this state. The proofs show that
since about the 2Sth day of April,
1898, the defendant, Vance, has been
absent from this county, and since
the 4th day of May, 1898, he has been
absent from this state as soldier in
! the volunteer army of the United
| States; that prior to that time he
lived In Clarksburg and had lived there
for many years: that he was bona
flde resident of said city, county and
state, and that he did not leave the
state with the intention of remaining
absent permanently, but simply as
| long as his services might be needed
as such soldier, obeying the orders of
his superior officers.
"There is nothing in the case to
show or even intimate that he does
not intend to return to his home when
discharged from the army. am
clearly of the opinion that a person
enlisting in the volunteer army of the
United States and going out of the
state for duty as such, with his COM
pany by order Of his superior officers,
does not make him nonresident of
the state where he resided at the time
of his enlistment, that he does not
thereby lose his residence and cannot
be deprived of his citizenship for this
cause.
81 cannot think that it is the law
in West Virginia, that when one of
our citizen soldiers steps across the
state line to repel IN invading foe,
that he thereby forfeits his residence
among us or his citizenship in the
state. There may be exceptional cases
like the one at the bar, where it may
be somewhat difficult to serve process
on the absent soldier, but it should
not be the policy of the law to make
it too easy to sue the man who is alb
sent on such patriotic duty"
The case will be appealed to the su-
preme court.