History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Palmer
17 A. 977
| N.H. | 1888
|
Check Treatment

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.

CARPENTER, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Palmer
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1888
Citation: 17 A. 977
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.