The National tribune., 1902-10-23
DEPARTMENT NEWS.

DESERTION-JOINT RESOLUTION
OF JULY /, 1902.-In the widows pen-
sion claim under the act of June ~. 1890.
| OF the widow of Henry Cuchfil. the con-
tention of the Pension Bureau that n new
application IS necessary in order to secure
the benefit of the joint resolution of July
| L, l3O2, IN cases formerly rejected on the
ground of alleged desertion. is evidently
disposed of. This case. under the ,ct of
1870. was rejected March IA, 1902, on the
ground that the soldier had not been hon
orably discharged from all his military ser
wee during the war of the rebellion. he
having deserted from one organization and
enlisted in another, in which he served
faithfully and received an honorable dis
charge therefrom.
The decision asst sec'y Campbell,
Aug. IL, 1902 says:
Since the rejection of the aboye-men-
toned claim for widows pension under
the third section of the act of June 27.
lo9U, q Joint resolution has been passed
by Congress and approved July /, 1902.
which has direct and material bearing
upon said action.
1T is obvious that the ac-
ton rejecting appellants application for
pension under the act of June 27. 1890
upon the ground stated, is no longer tena,
bic, and therefore said claim is hereby re-
manded with directions that the same be
reopened, recOnsidered and readiudicated
under the provisions of said joint resolrl-
ton, and such action taken therein as the
facts and evidence in the case may war
rant"
WIDOWS PENSION = DIVORCE
FROM BED AND BOARD.-In the pen
sion case of the widow of Otis Bills the
claimant is held not to be the legal widow
OF the soldier, as her divorce from a
.hnr
made absolute. The decision on appeal
asst Sec'y Campbell, Aug. Z, 1902 says:
IT appears that appellant was married
to this soldier, and at his death was Iiy-
ing IN the State of New Hampshire, by the
laws of which second marriage while a
nrst husband or wife is living and known
to be alive is declared to be absolutely
,o xoid without any decree of divorce or other
legal process pub. Stat, 1860, ch. 173.
sec; /; 1901, ch. 175, sec. 1.)"
The validity Of her marriage to the
soldier depends, therefore, upon the legal
efect OF the decree of divorce granted her
IN the State Of Massachusetts on Nav 2S.
1868. AS seen, said decree was one of di
vorce only from bed and board, and not
from from the bond OF matrimony, and it ap-
pears to have been granted in entire ac-
cordance with the law then in force (Gen.
Stat, 1850. ch. 1O7, sec. 81. which was re-
peaIed, however, on June %, 1870, (Sup
to Gen. Stat, 1860 to 1872, ch. 4O4, sec. 81.
section of the act of that date
providing that all parties now di-
vorced from bed and board shall
II divorced nisi under the privisions of
TINS act And section 2 of said act of
June %, 1870. then made causes for di
vorce from the bond of matrimony the
same causes which had heretofore. under
the General Statutes, entitled only to di-
Uorce from bed and board. while section
8 provided that in the cases mentioned in
said section 2 the court might after three
years and should after five years from
date of decree of nisi, upon proof of the
separatIon of the parties since that date
make such decree absolute as a decree
from the bond of matrimony.
"The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
constrning these statutes. has held that a
decree of divorce from bed and board
under the original General Statutes. or
decree nisi under the act of 1870, did not
sever the marital bond, and that a remar-
rage by either party would be void, even
though entered into in good faith and an
honest belief in right to remarry. and
even though entered into after the neriod
of separation mentioned in the law. vas os
there must be in such cases, to sever the
BOND OF matrimOny. n formal petition to
make absolute decree from bed and
board or decree nisi. and final decree
declaring the former to be absolute. (See
Graves v. Graves. 1OS Mass. 314: Edrer-
ly '. Edgerly, 112 Mass, SO: Sparhawk
V: Sparhawk. ia Mass, 355. and 116
Mass, 315: Fox v. Davis, 113 Mass. o3j.
Wales v; Wales, 119 Mass. 80; Moors V.
Moors, ~ Mass. 232: Pratt v. Pratt. 157
Mass, 5O3; Darrow v. Darrow, 159 Mass.
262)
1t is apparent. therefore, that this ap-
pellant has never been divorced from the
bond of matrimony existing between her
and Erasmus Holmes; that the same still
exists, and that under the laws of the
State of New HAMPSHIRE her marriage to |
the soldier was void. She is not. accord |
ingly, the latter's widow. and her claim |
for pension was properly rejected.
Rejection is affirmed"