State v. Palmer
This text of 17 A. 977 (State v. Palmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The facts involved in the question of domicil were either physical or mental. None of the physical facts bearing upon the question being in controversy, the mental fact of intention was necessarily the sole issue for the jury to determine; and if they should believe Dr. Daniels’s testimony, that he never intended to abandon his home in Barrington, or to acquire a home in Rochester, his legal domicil would of course be in Barrington, and entitle him to vote there.
The instructions complained of were legally correct.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 A. 977, 65 N.H. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-palmer-nh-1888.