Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1914-03-13
when those ygpurposes are answered

! ~ lnN the CASE iii % ~. q. LII. VIC III
| cumbent had removed himself ant
family to another place for temper
airy residence; The incumbent test
LIED that he was Registered in tn
going to and residing at the cottag
fifth ward of the city; that he Lal
WAYS had voted there; that heqwa
J assessed. there and nowhere else
that he, rented. his house there npo'
condition 5that it should be- surren
dAred- to him aatg any: time on ION
davis notice; that he went only item
oo1arily TO the, courthouse, the ptac
h;,chis Temporary residence, alwaS
iutcn5ing to return to his home in tn
fifth. ward and to maintain that "a
his residence. The court said tner'
was nothing in. the record thai
would Justify the court in refusing
no believe these srate1Eents.
In Isham V. Gibbons, l Bradford
I(N. " SO, where the question wa
whether testator ha!; ceased to he
resident of New Jersey because HI
lived part of the time in the city o.
New York in a house hired from year
10 year. "the onus," said the cour
"of proving the charge Is on th'
party alleging it (the presumption
of law being that domicil once ac
uuired subsits until change l:
rrove.) and this onus is not dis
CHARGED by merely proving RESI-
dence in another place. winch Is no
inconsistent with an intention to re
turn to the original domicil, for tns
charge must De demonstrated by
fact and intention.
In Crawford V. Wilson, Barbou!
504, the question was whether
teacher had ceased to be res
ident of particular place because
his actual residence had been IN an
other place for four months where ne
vas teaching school. 1t was held
hat by residing in the last-named
olace temporarily for particular
purpose he Gid not cease to be res
dent of the former place. The court
said that ga person having 3 fixed
c!ace of abode did not lose his res
dance thereby going to any other
olace for a particular purpose tent
oorarIly, whether for business, Pleas
IRE or health, with intent Of return
ing to the same as soon as such pur-
pose is accomplished; that his actua
.esid:ng where he was teaching school
lid not determine his legal residence
3ri domicil when he went to the
olace with the intention OF returning
when the purposes for which he went
wsre accomplished.
1t is well known that many persons
lave their summer homes and their
winter homes-their city homes and
their country homes-homes where
hcy were elected to Office and homes
It other. places where the duties Of
such offices are performed; yet 1t
5 never held that such persons have
,eased to be residents of their orig
inal places of residence by residing
# their other homes or places of resi-
Icnce, unless it appears from their
acts or conduct, or otherwise, that
shev intended to give up their o
and acquire new residences. II
such cases the act and :rtent must
concur. :,
The true test in cases of the kind
,,dor corsidera ton seems to be this.
hat "if a person leave his org7nal
.esidence amino non reverend, az"
adopt another (for space OF t!He
however brief, if it be done) ammo
manendi. his first residence is lost
Rut if in leaving his original resi-
hence he does so, amino REVEREND
such original residence continues IN
aw Notwithstanding the temporary
absence of himself and family. Such
is the uniform language of the BOOKS
os we'll as the clear conclusion OF
,o-,mor sanse" Cadwallader V. How
FL supra. 49,,
Anv other rule as was said IN that
case wouil make an immense class
If persons (whose influence and sta,
IN the community as property hoId'
ers are great mere political vag
rants.
N this case the plaintiff in erro7
testified that in residing at his cot
| t.oe he had no intention of giving
m his legal residence in the city
and his remaining at the cottage long
or than he intended when he wen
tbere .ia satisfactorily explained
Tho fact that he spent a large por
ton Of his time attending to hi
business in the city Of Washington
docs not affect the question, for h