This was a suit brought January 11, 1893, in the supreme courtroom of the state of recent York, by Mary G. Atherton in opposition to Peter Lee Atherton, for a divorce from mattress and board, for the custody of the little one of the parties, and for the help of the plaintiff and the child, on the bottom of merciless and abusive therapy of the plaintiff by the defendant. The court determined that the decree in Kentucky was inoperative and void as in opposition to the wife, and no bar to this motion; and gave judgment in her favor for a divorce from bed and board, and for the custody of the little one, and for the assist of herself and the child. ↑ The undersigned, Peter Lee Atherton, and his wife, Mary G. Atherton, having ceased to reside collectively as man and wife, with out in any means acknowledging upon whom is the fault, or condoning the conduct of the one or the opposite which has led to the present state of affairs, or stopping any consequence which can follow, or proper which may come up to either celebration if such standing shall continue, desire to offer for the best curiosity of their child, Mary Valeria Atherton.


On February 9, 1893, Walker filed his report, during which he stated: 'On this, the fifth day of January, 1893, I wrote to stated defendant, Mary G. Atherton, at Clinton, in the state of recent York, fully advising her of the objects and functions of this motion, stating therein a substantial copy of the petition, etc., plainly directed mentioned letter to her at said place, paid the postage, had printed on the envelope inclosing it, 'If not delivered in ten days return to Jno. On October 17, 1888, the parties had been married at Clinton, Oneida County, New York, the plaintiff being a resident of that place, and the defendant a resident of Louisville, Kentucky. By the file of that decree, duly verified, the next appeared: On December 28, 1892, the plaintiff filed a petition beneath oath, containing the same statements because the decree, and in addition stating 'that the said defendant may be found in Clinton, state of latest York, and that in mentioned Clinton is stored the postoffice which is nearest to the place the place the defendant could also be discovered.' On the identical day, pursuant to the requirements of the statutes of Kentucky, the clerk made an order warning the defendant to appear inside sixty days and reply the petition, and appointing John C. Walker, an attorney of the court, to defend for her and in her behalf, and to inform her of the nature and pendency of the go well with.


That judgment was affirmed by the overall term of the supreme court of new York, and by the court docket of appeals of the state. The supreme court docket of recent York discovered that the wife 'was not personally served with process throughout the state of Kentucky, or in any respect; nor did she in any manner seem, or authorize an appearance for her, in the mentioned action and proceeding;' and that before the graduation of that go well with, and ever since, she had ceased to be a resident of Kentucky, and had become and was a resident of the state of recent York, domiciled and residing in Clinton, with her youngster. Immediately after the marriage, the events went to and resided at Louisville, within the house with the defendant's dad and mom, had a toddler born to them on January 8, 1890, and there continued to reside as husband and wife until October 3, 1891. Then, owing to his cruel and abusive remedy, with out fault on her part, she left him, taking the little one along with her, and in a couple of days thereafter, returned to her mother at Clinton, and has ever since resided there along with her mom, and is a resident and domiciled within the state of latest York, and has not lived or cohabited with the defendant.


The defendant continued to reside in Louisville, and is a resident of the State of Kentucky. From these views it seems to me to observe, that a married lady cannot during the existence of the matrimonial relation, and during the life of the husband the wife cannot be remitted to the civil or political place of a feme sole, and cannot therefore turn into a citizen of a State or community different from that of which her husband is a member. It has been suggested that by the laws of among the States a married lady, after separation, is permitted to choose a residence in a neighborhood or locality completely different from that during which she resided anterior to the separation, and different from the residence of the husband. This allowance would possibly unquestionably be forfeited upon proof of criminality or misconduct of the wife, who wouldn't be permitted to enforce the payment of that to which it ought to be shown she had misplaced all simply claim; and this inhibition, it is presumed, might embrace as properly a portion of that allowance at any time in arrears, as its demand in future. It isn't unconditional, but all the time dependent upon the private deserves and conduct of the wife-merits and conduct which must exist and continue, in an effort to constitute a valid declare to such an allowance.


Should you loved this information and you wish to receive more info relating to زواج عرفي فى مصر kindly visit our own web-site.