The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1935-01-26

w AC44lduI tAlc1C dIlU 1l6O IN 4uGtSl
interest In North Dakota.
He attacked affidavits Of eight mel
and one woman, most of them news
paper friends and acquaintance o
Noodle, as biased, inspired by friend
ship and not worthy Of full credence
although no effort to attack then
by presenting opposing evidence wa
made.
Statements Not Attacked
G. J. Murphy commended that thes'
statements, since they were not at.
tackled, are worthy Of belief by tn
court, asserting that the judges shoule
either take them at face value or TAKE
the position that all Of the affiant.
are perjurers and not believe then
at all.
He pointed to Noodles continued
interest in North Dakota. his con.
slant efforts to obtain q newspaper
here that he might return and the
fact that he did return as continuing
evidence Of intention which was never
changed.
Since the state law governing resi-
dence provides that residence may be
changed only by a union Of act and
intent, the courts Interpretation Of
what Noodles intentions were Is ex-
pected to govern the case.
That this will be an important fac
tor also was indicated by q question
from the bench on Friday by Judge
Christianson who said he wanted to
get a picture" Of Noodles mind.
Stress Three Documents
The state laid stress on the three
documents mentioned, plus an income
tax report filed by Noodle for 1891 in
which he said he was mot resident"
Of North Dakota in 1890, as the best
proof Of Noodles intentions.
The defense stressed Noodles ef-
forts to get another newspaper in
North Dakota after selling out at Mo-
hall, the fact that he left his house,
hold goods In this state and the
further fact that he did, In pursu-
ance Of negotiations begun before he
left the state, return to North Da-
kota as a stakeholder and employe
of the Williston Herald.
In discussing the law OF residence,
Francis Murphy made much of the
statutory declaration that his resi-
dence is the place to which man re-
turns "in seasons Of repose." His In
depreciation was that Noodle had no
further contact with North Dakota,
that his place Of repose for Is months
in part of 1929 and 1880 was In Min
nesota and that Minnesota was legally
his home.
Floating Intention Cited
He also discussed the law with re-
gard to floating intention" pointing
to numerous decisions whereby q man
with floating intention was . resi-
dent OF the place from which his
floating" began.
In stressing this argument, Francis
Murphy declared Noodle to be an itin-
Grant, pointing to the record of his
travels from early youth to support
this claim.
c. j. Murphy turned this argument
to his own advantage by pointing out
that, II Noodle came under the law
defining floating intention" he did
so as a resident Of North Dakota and
that, before the law could be applied
against him, Francis Murphy would
first have to get him located as resi-
dent of North Dakota, when, as q mat
ter of fact. he had been admittedly .
resident of North Dakota from 1924
until he left In 1929.
Murphy also ridiculed the conten-
ton that Noodle had, In effect, to
maintain a residence In North Dakota
as a place of repose" to come under
the statute. He inquired what about
travelling man who makes the state
his home but who yet travels outside
Of it for long periods In performing
his work and who, when he returns,
lives in hotel, almost never IN the
same room. In any event, he said, the
fact that Noodle left his household
goods in North Dakota indicated that
he still regarded this state as his home
and intended to return here.
Cites Officials Status
In further denial Of too strict an
Of the place Of re-
pose" idea, G. J. Murphy pointed out
that many state officials move to Bis
marck upon their election, taking all
their goods with them, but that they
still retain the place where they lived
when elected as their legal home, even
though their place Of repose is in the
capital.
Contention by Francis Murphy that
there can be no such thing as q state
wide residence was met by G. j. MUIR
ply with another example based on
the travelling man and held to be
ridiculous. He also laid stress upon the
fact that a man cannot lose residence
in this state until he acquires resi-.
dence in another and that this requires
a union of act and intent which, In
Noodles case, never existed.
Pointing to Noodles attempt to
acquire an interest in the Williston
Herald before leaving the state and
the fact that he finally did 60 there,
C. j. Murphy said he remained In
Minneapolis only long enough to com.
plete this deal In satisfactory man.
ner.
The fact that he worked in Minne-
apolis in the meantime, stressed by
Francis Murphy as an indication that
he intended to stay there, was held to
be in his favor. He said it indicated
energy and a constructive attitude on
the part OF the governor.
In his arguments on law and intent
to the court. Francis Murphy attacked
the statements Of Noodle. He main
tanned Noodle had broken his con-
facts with North Dakota and had no
further interest whatsoever" in the
state. HE had torn his roots up
when he left North Dakota" Murphy
declared.
Murphy maintained Noodles acts
in Minnesota were wholly inconsis-
tent" with his claim that he did not
intend to establish q residence IN
that state.
Based on Three Factors
He told the court it should con-
slider three factors: Noodles acts In
Minneapolis, his declarations prior ia
beginning Of the court test, and his
declarations subsequent to the court
action.
He held that Noodles acts in Min
neapolis were 'indicia" OF domicile;
he claimed that Noodle, by hts own
statements. looked upon Minnesota q