The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1902-11-20
DEPARTMENT NEWS.

DIVISION OF PENSION-ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1S99.-In the claim of Iona
4. Pierce against Chester Pierce for d.
vision of pension, the pensioner appealed
from the action of the Pension Bureau
allowing part of his pension to his wife;
his contention being that his wife. is re-
spOnsible for their separation, and that
she has refused to live with him although
he has offered her home. The decision
asst. Secy. Campbell, July II, 1902 says:
Claimant testifies that she has never
refused to live with her husband, and has
always been ready and willing to resume
her marital relations with him if he would
return to her.
while the law recognizes the right of
the husband to fix the domicile, and re-
quires the wife to follow the husband I'M
der penalty of being considered the de-
serter, yet he cannot exercise this power
arbitrarily, butwith reason and discretion.
He is, therefore. required to show reason
able cause why his wife should follow him
when he changes his abode.
pensioners contention that his wife
is responsible for their separation and
that she has refused to live with him,
without legal justification, is not sustained
by the evidence in the case.
1.-The refusal of the wife to follow her
husband, who has deserted her, to an
other State, and leave her home upon the
home for her, does not necessarily cOnsti-
tute her the deserter. SchOuler's Domes-
tic Relations I'D Ed. par. 3S): Gleason
v Gleason a Wis. Ga: Bishop V. Bishop
GO Pa. ST, 412l; Hardenberger v. Har-
denberger "a Cal, 654): Powell v. Powell
90 VT. 14s: Phelan V: Phelan G35 Ill.
App, 511: affirmed in 135 ILL.,, 443).
''The desertion of the husband entities
the wife to her own domicile. MOffatt v.
MOffatt q Cal, 2Sl).
"The evidence in this case shows that
the only legal domicile. the true and fixed
and permanent home of pensiOner and
claimant, was Mt Coloma. Mich.
''FrOm this home he deserted and has
since lived in five different States. He
was illegally married in San Diego. Cal,
in 1896, according to his own admission:
his attempt to establish a home there was
evidently failure, as he admits that he
has secured a decree of nullity from the
woman to whom he was then married, and
he is now living at Los Angeles, Cal. 1t
does not appear that he has any house or
home there to offer his wife in exchange
for the one he asks her to surrender, nor
does it appear that his invitation was
made in good faith, or with the desire or
expectation that it would be accepted.
''In the case of Hardenberger "a CAL.
654. heretofore cited, the husband sought
to obtain Il divorce from his wife because
she declined to leave their home in New
Jersey and join him in California upon
his request; and the court said:
I'VE think the circumstances We're suf-
ficient to authorize the defendant 1.-THE
wifeD to regard any proposition for her
removal as a proposal addressed merely
to her discretion, and which she could re-
ject without mourning the penalty or even
suspicion of desertion-and the husbands
application for divorce, based on said ell
legged desertion, was denied
I'm that case the original separation
had been amicable; the husband was not
in fault.
I'm the case under consideration the
husband is the party in fault; he is the
deserter. His legal duty is to rejoin his
wife, and having deserted her he cannot
now by offering, her home (which he
does not appear to possess) constitute hel
the deserter because of her refusal to fol-
low him.
''As stated by Schouler on Domestic Re
lations I'D Ed. par. 3S):
a husband would not be permitted
to remove his wife to some remote and
undesirable place for the purpose of pun
ishing or tormenting her. or so as to
compel her to stay alone where he did not
mean to reside himself; for this would not
be fixing the matrimonial domicile with
honest intent. Nay, more, there are sew
eral recent decisions in this country which
point to an obligation on the husbands
part to show reasonable cause why his
wife should follow him when he changes
his abode
"Without further discussion Of this case
it is sufficient to say that no reason APP
pears for reversing the action appealed
from, and it is accordingly affirmed"
In the claim Of Alice Smith against
Thomas Smith fGx division Of pension. the
pensioner appealed from the action of the
oil MI ~ I,sr
sion to his wife; his contention being that
he had called on her Subsequent to the
granting Of the wife's claim, and asked