Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

Cal. District Court

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 162

DecidedAugust 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 162 (Wilkinson v. Wilkinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 162 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Norton, J.

remarked, in delivering an oral opinion in Court, that., the Supreme Court of the State had decided, in Kashaw -vs. Kashaw, 8 Cal., 812, that the domicil of the husband was the domicil of-.the wife; and'applying that rule, in the absence of evidence of desertion on the part of the husband, it was to be presumed that her .domicil was still with him, in the State of Massachusetts, and consequently she could not maintain this action, not having resided In this State six months, according to the decision of the case of Kashaw us.-Kashaw.

The intemperance proved had existed many years since,, and it was incumbent on the applicant-for divorce, upon that ground, to prove the .continuance of the offense, inasmuch as it is one of those-habits which might be discontinued, and- the defendant in this case, at the present time, may not be df intemperate habits. The desertion, as established, was on the part of the wife, she having left her husband. Upon these grounds the divorce was refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Norton, J.

remarked, in delivering an oral opinion in Court, that., the Supreme Court of the State had decided, in Kashaw -vs. Kashaw, 8 Cal., 812, that the domicil of the husband was the domicil of-.the wife; and'applying that rule, in the absence of evidence of desertion on the part of the husband, it was to be presumed that her .domicil was still with him, in the State of Massachusetts, and consequently she could not maintain this action, not having resided In this State six months, according to the decision of the case of Kashaw us.-Kashaw.

The intemperance proved had existed many years since,, and it was incumbent on the applicant-for divorce, upon that ground, to prove the .continuance of the offense, inasmuch as it is one of those-habits which might be discontinued, and- the defendant in this case, at the present time, may not be df intemperate habits. The desertion, as established, was on the part of the wife, she having left her husband. Upon these grounds the divorce was refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-wilkinson-caldistct-1857.