The National tribune., 1903-11-26
DEPARTMENT NEWS.
DIVISION OF PENsIoN-AcT OF MARCH
1859

DIVISION OF PENsIoN-AcT OF MARCH 3
1859.
On the application Of Minnie C. Will.
for half the pension of her husband. Dayif
Wilson, alias Frank Willie, an the grounf
of desertion as prescribed by act of Marcl
3, 1899, the pensioner appealed from The
favorable action of the Pension Burean
The decision on the appeal says (Ass't
Sec'y Miller, Jnly %, 1903, serial No. III
Pensioners main contention before tn.
Bureau WAS that claimant was not hi.
legal wife: that he had been previously
married TO one Venelia c. Hart and had
never applied for or procured a divorce
from her He admitted however that hs
was married to claimant under the name
of Frank Willie for the purpose of con
cealing his ideni.y from the father of his
former wife. He also admitted that he
did not know whether his former wife had
obtained divorce or was alive at the date
of his marriage TO claimant.
THE evidence filed by pensioner fails
10 disprove the validity or legality of his
marriage to claimant. The fact that he
was married TO Venelia G. Hart in 1866
is not sufficient 10 overcome or outweigh
the validity of his subsequent marriage to
claimant.
The law presumes in favor of limo.
cence in support OF n duly established
marriage, and the party attacking the
validity OF such marriage on the ground
that one Of the parties TO such marriage
was incompetent to contract the marriag.
by reason of a prior subsisting marriage
must not only prove valid prior mar.
riage, but must also prove that such prior
marriage had not been dissolved in any
manner at the time of the second mar.
riage, even though il involves the proving
of a negative. This is a general and we'll
recognized rule of evidence. Every pre-.
sumption is in favor of the validity OF the
established marriage, and these presump
tions must ali be overcome by satisfac.
tory, irrefragable proof, the burden OF
proof being upon the party attacking the
marriage. Forbin V. FOrbin Q3 p. ID.
100; Sharkey V. Sharkey (ibid., 297); Isa.
bel w. Siler 90 Z. D., u; Jennette Bur.
243). 'N
This is an Illinois marriage. and the
rule OF evidence above referred to is well
recognized by the courts of Illinois. Sec
Coal Run Company V. Jones Q27 Ill.,
879l; Harris V. Harris g Brad. App
Rep. 90; johnson Y. johnson Ola H.,
Gill; Cole Q53 Ill:, $3.50; Schmisseur v
Beatrie Q47 H., 21W.
THE Bureau action appealed from was
strictly IN accordance with the law and
the evidence and is accordingly affirmed. .
Benton Lockard appealed from the &C.
tion Of the Pension Bureau awarding one.
half his pension to his wife, Elsie Lock
ard. The decision on the appeal says
asst Sec'y Miller, July 20, 1903, serial
No. 12):
Claimant does not deny that she has
refused aid from pensoner since their
final separation or that she has refused
TO live with him.
"The first question presented for de-
termination by the Department Is, Was
claimant legally justified In leaving her
husband and the matrimonial home and
refusing his Subsequent offers of reeoncil.
iation and support That she has suffered
much injury, cruelty, and abuse from him
can not, in view Of the foregoing testi-
mony, be reasonably denied That she
should have condoned the offense for
which he was sent to the penitentiary.
and after procuring divorce from him