''FS.,'V-a»\:?^,-^»»-l»*"j'^^^»-jCt»\ri..J»t LIBRARY f OF THE University of California. ...^ 4u.n^ 1^ Class Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation .http://www.archive.org/details/digestofdecisionOOunitrich DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN APPEALED PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS; ALSO A TABLE OF CASES REPORTED, CITED, OVERRULED, AND MODIFIED, AND OF STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED, CONTAINED IN VOLS. 9 TO 15, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PENSION DECISIONS, WITH ANNOTATIONS. BY EUGENE B. PAYNE, Of the Bureau of Pensions. VESPASIAN WARNER, Commissioner. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1905. INTRODUCTION. A comprehensive digest of all pension decisions rendered by the Secretary since the formulation and issuance of the Digest of 1897 has long been needed by the workers of the Pension Bureau. Such a work, I think, I have succeeded in formulating. The analyzing, grouping, arranging, and cross referencing of tjie vast number of pension decisions rendered by the Secretary upon the contested points of the pension laws and practice arising since 1897, together with appropriate tables and some annotations by the author relative to the points decided and the changes in the practice of the Bureau rendered necessary thereby, has been no easy task. If I have suc- ceeded in any manner in making lighter the daily toil of my coworkers in the Pension Bureau I shall be satisfied. I therefore dedicate this work to them. I desire to thank all my friends who have aided me in the preparation of this Digest. Eugene B. Payne, Army Division^ Bureau of Pensions. Washington, D. C, November i, 1905. 142578 ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER. First Title page. Second Introduction. Third Explanation of cross references and abbreviations. Fourth Table of general titles. Fifth Table of cases reported in and digested from volumes 9 to 15, Pen- sion Decisions, both inclusive. Sixth Table of cases cited in volumes 9 to 15, both inclusive. Seventh Tables of laws cited and construed in volumes 9 to 15, both inclu- sive, being United States Statutes at Large, sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and State statutes. Eighth Table of cases overruled, modified, or distinguished in volumes 1 to 15, both inclusive. Ninth Cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, both inclusive, digested and arranged in chapters,* with index to each, and doubly cross referenced. EXPLANATION. Every decision published from the ninth to the fifteenth volumes of Pension Decisions, inclusive, is placed in this Digest under its appropriate title or sub- head and then cross referenced under every other subhead or subject to which the decision alludes, not only by noting the chapter of this Digest where the syllabus of the decision may be found, but also the volume and page of Pen- sion Decisions where the entire case may be found. ABBREVIATIONS. L. B. P Letter Book Pensions, being the early records' of the Interior Department relative to pension decisions by the Secretary, and dating March 10, 1849. P. D., o. s Pension Decisions (old series), being the departmental records (vols. 1 to 34) of pension decisions by th ^ Secretary from July 5, 1872, to July 23, 1887. P. D Pension Decisions (published vols. Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive) , dating from February 6,1886. to June 1, 1905. L. B Current Series of Press Letter Books, dating from June 6, 1890, and numbered 1 to 233 et seq. Op Opinion of the Attorney-General Sec Secretary. Asst. Sec -Assistant Secretary. Comr Commissioner of Pensions. TABLE GENERAL TITLES. Page. Abandonment 105 Absence 106 Absence from command- - _ 106 Accidental injury 106 Accrued pensions 106 Act February 1 1 , 1847 112 Act March 3, 1855 112 Act March 25, 1862 112 Act July 4, 1864 : 112 Act March 3, 1865 112 Act July 18, 1874 112 Act June 17, 1878 112 Act March 3, 1879 112 Act June 16, 1880 112 Act July25, 1882 112 Act Aiigust7, 1882 112 Act.August 8, 1882 113 Act March 3, 1883... 113 Act March 3, 1885 113 Act March 19,1886 , 113 Act August 4, 1886 113 Act January 29, 1887 113 Act March 4, 1890 113 Act June 27, 1890 113 Act July 1,1890 .. 115 Act March 3, 1891 115 Act July 14, 1892 , 115 Act July27, 1892 115 Act January 5, 1893 115 Act December 21 , 1893 115 Act March 2, 1895 115 Act March 6, 1896. 115 Act March 13,1896 116 Act February 5, 1897 116 Act March 30, 1898 116 Act March 3. 1899 116 Act April 23, 1900 116 ActMay 9, 1900 116 Act March 3, 1901 116 Act June 27, 1902 116 Act January 15, 1903 117 Page. Act March 2, 1903. 117 Adjudication _ 117 Admissions 117 Adulterous cohabitation 117 Age ._ 121 Age of consent- 122 Aggravation and recurrence of old disability 122 Aid and attendance 122 Alabama laws 127 Aliens 127 Allegations _ .1 127 Amendments .... 127 Amputation 127 Anterebellion service and pen- sions .128 Apoplexy 129 Appeals 129 Applications 132 Appointed man 131 Appointment 132 Approximate age 122 Arkansas laws 132 Arizona Territory, laws of 132 Army nurses. . 132 Arrears 132 Arterio-sclerosis 132 Articles of separation 132 Artificial limb 132 Assignment 132 Asthma 132 Ataxic paraphlegia 133 Attending physician 133 Attestation . 133 Attorneys 133 Bacteriology 142 Beaty 's Independent Scouts 142 Blindness 142 Bounty 142 Bounty land 142 Board of enrollment 144 5 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Brief face - 144 Burden of proof 144 California laws 144 Cancer - 145 Case of difficulty and trouble 145 Catarrh 144 Catarrh and bronchitis 145 Catarrh and general paralysis of the insane 145 Cause of disability 145 Cayuse Indians - 145 Cerebral hemorrhage 145 Cerebro-spinal sclerosis 145 Ceremony 145 Certificate of disability 145 Certificate of medical examina- tion 145 Charitable institutions 146 Cherokee disturbances 146 Cherokee Nation 146 Choctaw Nation 146 Chronic ascending neuritis 146 Chronic diarrhea 145 Chyluria parasitica 146 Circumstantial evidence 146 Citizenship 146 avilcode 146 Civil death 146 Civilian employees 146 Civilians 146 Cohabitation 146 Cohabitation and repute 147 Collusion 147 Colorado laws 147 Colored marriages 147 Colored or Indian soldiers in Ken- tucky • 147 Colored persons _ . . 147 Colored troops 147 Combination of causes 147 Combined rates . . 147 Commencement 147 Commencement of service 154 Commissioner of Pensions- 154 Commissioners board of enroll- ment - 154 Common-law marriages 155 Compounding rates 147 Conduct 155 Confederate service 155 Connecticut laws 155 Consanguinity 155 Conscription 155 Page. Consolidation of claims _ 155 Construction of statutes 156 Construed 155 Continuance 155 Contract 157 Contract surgeon _ 157 Contributions 156 Contributory negligence 157 Cooperation with Navy 157 Credibility 157 Cruelty 157 Deafness 158 Death . 158 Death cause 158 Death from drinking unboiled water 158 Death in service . . . - 158 Death of claimant 158 Death of client . 158 Declarations 171 Decree 167 Decree a mensa et thoro 168 Decree nisi 168 Decree of nullity 168 Default 177 Defective vision 178 Delaware laws 178 Demonstration 1 78 Dependence _ _ - 187 Dependent brothers and sisters - . 195 Dependent parents 178 Dependent widow 188 Deserted wife 237 Desertion 197 Diarrhea * 229 Difficulty and trouble 221 Disability . 221 Disbandment 221 Disbarred attorney 228 Discharge 226 Discharge without honor 228 Disease of eyes 228 Disease of heart 221 Disease of kidneys _ - 228 Disease of rectum and uraemic poisoning 228 Disease of spine 228 Dishonorable discharge 228 Disloyalty 210 Dismissal 229 Dismissed 221 District of Columbia laws 228 Division of pension - 237 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page Divorce 229 Domicile 263 Double pension 263 Drafted man 264 Drafted man and substitute 264 Dropping 264 Duress 264 Election 264 Ellet's ram fleet 265 Emancipation - . . .■ 265 Emancipation proclamation . 265 Engaged in athletic sports 265 Enlistment 265 Epilepsy 265 Erysipelas 265 Estoppel 265 Evidence 267 Examination of record 279 Examining surgeons 278 Execution ... : . 279 Execution of papers 279 Experts 279 Failure to prosecute 279 Faithful service 279 Fee 279 Fee agreements 289 Fee and merit claim 279 Filing 289 Final action 292 First grade 289 Florida laws 289 Florida wars 289 Foreign divorces 290 Forfeiture 290 Fraud 290 Fraud and mistake 290 Fund 292 Gangrene 292 Georgia, laws of 293 Gilpin's battalion 293 Good faith 293 Government Hospital for the In- sane 295 Grade rates 293 Grandchildren of soldier 293 Gray "s battalion 293 Guardians 293 Guardianship 295 Gunshot wound 295 Gunshot wound and paralysis agitans 295 Hawkins-Taylor Commission 295 Hearsay 295 Page. Helpless minor 295 Hemiplegia . 300 Hernia 300 Home guards 300 Honorable discharge . - . 300 Husband and wife 300 Identity 300 Illicit cohabitation 301 Illinois laws 302 Impediment 302 In arrest awaiting trial 302 Income 302 Increase 303 Incubation 302 Incurrence j^.. 302 Indiana laws I*^ 308 Indian divorces 308 Indians 308 Indian wars 308 Infants 309 Insane or helpless minor 309 Insanity 309 Inflammation of the bladder and hernia 310 Injury to back 310 Insane persons 309 Instructions _ . _ 310 Intent 310 Interlocutory decree 311 Interlocutory order . 310 Iowa laws .-- 311 Joint resolution of July 1 , 1902 . . 311 1. Confederates 311 2. Union deserters 311 Judges' minutes 311 Judgment 315 Jurisdiction 311 Kansas laws 315 Kentucky laws 315 Lay testimony 315 Leave of absence 318 Legal representatives 315 Legitimacy 315 Length of service 318 Lex domicilii 319 Lightning stroke and paralysis . - 319 Limitation 319 Line of duty 321 Locomotor ataxia 330 Lost warrant • 330 Louisiana laws 330 Maine laws 330 Maine, the 330 8 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Malaria --.. 330 Malarial poisoning 330 Marital desertion 330 Marriage _ ". 330 Maryland laws 385 Massachusetts laws - . - 385 Material service . . - 385 Masters and mates • 385 Means of support 386 Medical examinations . . . - 386 Medical referee 386 Meningitis . . 387 Mental deficiency 387 Mexican war 387 Michigan laws 387 Military age 387 Militia 387 Minnesota laws 390 Minor grandchildren - - 387 Minors 387 Minors' pension ' 390 Missing in action . 391 Mississippi laws 390 Mississippi Marine Brigade 391 Missouri laws 391 Missouri Militia 391 Mistake 391 Montana laws 391 Moral character 391 Murder 391 Muster 391 Muster out to receive new com- mission 391 Myopia 391 Naval Home 395 Navy pension 393 Nebraska laws 395 Necessitous circumstances 395 Neglect _ 396 Negligence 396 Neuralgia 396 Nevada laws . _ _ . 395 New disability 396 New examinations 396 New Hampshire laws 395 New Jersey laws 395 New Mexico laws 395 New York laws , 396 No benefit '. 396 Nofund— nofee 396 Nonresidents — claims by 396 Notice 397 Nullity -.-. 397 Page. Nunc pro tunc decree 398 North Carolina laws _ . 1 398 North Dakota laws 398 Oaths of enlistment 398 Obstruction of bowels 398 1 (Edema 398 I Officer 398 I Ohio laws... 398 ! On a pass to hunt 398 On a pass to visit friends 398 One claim — one fee 398 I Order 74 398 I Order 192 398 j Order 352 399 Order 354 399 Oregon laws , . 400 Origin 399 Opinion evidence 400 Opinion of other Departments. . . 400 Orphan brothers and sisters 400 Pardon 400 Pass to hunt 400 Pass, on a, to visit friends 400 Pathological sequence 401 Pathology 400 Paralysis 413 Paralysis agitans 413 Payment 414 Payment of pension 413 Pending claim 414 Pennsylvania laws 414 Pension fund 415 Permanent and specific 415 Personal altercation 415 Pilot : 415 Poison 415 Poisoning 415 Powell's battalion 415 Power of attorney . 415 Practice 416 Predisposing cause 432 Preemption 432 Presumption as to material serv- ice 432 Presumption as to prior sound- ness 433 Presumption of capacity 432 Presumption of death 432 Presumption of divorce 433 Presumption of illicit cohabita- tion 432 Presumption of prior service 433 Presumption of vicious habits. . . 432 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 9 Page. Presumptions 432 Prima facie case ^_- 433 Prior marriage 433 Prior service 433 Prior soundness- 433 Probate court 433 Proof 434 Proof of death 435 Pro rata fee 434 Provost marshals : 434 Putative marriage 435 Rank 435 Rateand rating 435 Read judication 443 Recognition 443 Reconsideration 443 Record _ 443 Record of War Department 443 Recruit 444 Refundment '. 446 Reduction 444 Reformation 446 Reimbursement 446 Reissue 446 Rejected recruit 444 Rejection 448 Remarriage 448 Renewal 449 Reopening 449 Repayment : 449 Representative of attorney 452 Reputation _ . 452 Rerating „ 449 Residence in Soldiers' Homes 452 Res judicata 452 Restoration 453 Retired officer 461 Retroactive laws 461 Retroactive legislation 461 Retrospective laws 461 Revenue cutter 461 Review 461 Rheumatism 461 Rhode Island laws 461 Rule to show cause 461 Rule No. 1 of practice. . 461 Rule No. 2 of practice . . 461 Rule No. 12 of practice 461 Rule No. 13 of practice 461 Rule No. 16 of practice 461 Rule No. 19 of practice 462 Rule No. 20 of practice _ 462 Sabine Indian war 462 Page. Schedule of rates : 462 Sea pay . .. 462 Secretary of War 462 Secretary of the Interior . . . 462 Sections 2418-2424 and 2428, Re- vised Statutes 462 Section 2444, Revised Statutes. . . 462 Sections 4692, 4693, and 4694, Re- vised Statutes 462 Section 4693, Revised Statutes. . . 462 Section 4698i, Revised Statutes. _ 462 Section 4701 , Revised Statutes. . . 462 Section 4702, Revised Statutes. . _ 462 Sections 4704, 4705, 4707, and 4723, Revised Statutes 463 Section 4705, Revised Statutes. . _ 463 Section 4706, Revised Statutes. . . 463 Section 4707 , Revised Statutes ... 463 Section 4707, Revised Statutes, as amended by act of June 27, 1890 463 Section 4713, Revised Statutes. . . 463 Section 47 1 4 , Revised Statutes ... 463 Section 4715, Revised Statutes. . . 463 Section 4716, Revised Statutes. . . 463 Section 4716, Revised Statutes, and act June 27, 1890 464 Section 4719, Revised Statutes. . . 464 Section 4720, Revised Statutes. . . 464 Section 4730 , Revised Statutes ... 464 Section 4756, Revised Statutes. . _ 464 Section 4757, Revised Statutes. . . 464 Senile cataract 464 Senility 464 Separation 464 Service 464 Short certificates 490 Slaves 490 Slave marriages . ( Also , see Mar- riages, No. 15) 490 South Carolina laws 491 South Dakota laws 493 Special act 491 Special examination 492 Special examiners. ... 492 Special examiners' conduct 492 Specialist 492 Specific disability 492 Stare decisis 492 Substitutes-. -.... .- 492 Substitution 492 Succession 493 Sufficient averments 492 10 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Sufficiency 492 Supplemental 493 Support 492 Soldiers' Home 492 Sunstroke 492 Suspension - 493 Suspension of payment 493 Surgeon's certificate 493 Surgical operation 493 Syphilis 493 Teamster 493 Tennessee laws 493 Termination of pension _ . . 493 Termination , war of the rebellion _ 493 Test medical examination . 493 Texas laws 493 Third grade 494 Title 494 Total disability in a foot 494 Total disability in one arm 494 Total disability in both feet - 494 Travel pay 494 Treasurer of Soldiers' Home 494 Tuberculosis 494 Two claims and two fees 494 Two pensions 494 Typewritten signature of attor- ney 494 Typhoid fever _ . 494 Page. Ulceration and syncope 495 Ulcerations . . 494 Unassigned recruit 495 Undergoing punishment 495 Utah laws 495 Vested rights 495 Veterinary surgeons 495 Vermont laws 495 Vicious habits 495 Virginia laws 496 Vision . 496 Voidable enlistments 496 Voidable marriages _ . . 496 Void enlistments 496 Void marriages 496 Volunteers 496 Wagon masters. 496 War of the rebellion 497 War with Mexico 496 War with Spain _ 497 Western gunboat flotilla 497 West Virginia laws 497 Widow and minor 497 Widows 497 Widow's pension . 497 Widow's title 497 Wisconsin laws 498 Witnesses 498 Wood alcohol 498 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN VOLUMES 9 TO 15, PENSION DECISIONS, BOTH INCLUSIVE, AND IN THIS J)IGEST. Name Voluine and page. Chapter of digest and index number. A. Aab, George (deceased) Ague, Matilda Allen, Elishup P. (insane) Anderson, James W Ai-mstrong, Charles A Acton, Elizabeth (alleged widow) Adamson, Angeline (alleged widow) Ahkee, la-nee-gar, Dah-Ya-ne Alden, Reuben (minor of ) Afflerbach, John H.. — Alexander, Enoch Anderson, John B Adams v. Adams Adams, Elizabeth (widow ) Adams, Harriet (mother) Ambers, Sella (widow) Allburn, Christina E . (widow) Arose, Martha (as widow) Ashley v. Ashley Alsup, Susan F., alias Bean... Andrews, Adaline (minor) Andrews, Peter Apgar, Martha (widow) Armstrong, Jasper N Do Atherton, Jennie (widow) Armstrong, E. E. (attorney) Anabal, Nancy J. (mother) Andrews, Emma A. (widow) Anderson, Cressie L. (minor) Alex, Martha, or Alec (widow) B. Baker, Geo. W Baker, Matilda Baker, William A. (dependent sister of) Barlow, Henry Berlin, H. S. (attorney) Do Bianchi, Matteo (deceased) : Bice, William Boale, William 9 P. D., 377 9 P. D., 327 9P.D., 19 9 P. D., 422 9P.D., 71 IOP.D.,258 10 P. D., 328 10 P. D., 146 10 P. D., 22 11 P. D., 508 11 P. D., 151 11 P. D., 1 12 P. D., 370 12 P. D., 312 12P.D.,428 12 P. D., 333 13 P. D., 333 13 P. D., 403 13 P. D., 205 14 P. D., 494 14 P. D., 288 14 P. D., 413 14 P. D., 7 14 P. D., 286 14 P. D., 420 14 P. D., 554 15 P. D., 317 15 P. D., 194 15 P. D., 215 15 P. D., 211 15P.D.,590 9 P. D., 125 9 P. D., 116 9P.D.,504 9 P. D., 347 9 P. D., 471 9 P. D., 147 9P.D.,222 9P.D., 21 9 P. D., 376 Fee, No. 7. Adulterous cohabitation, No. 2. Attorneys, No. 5. Service, No. 10. Practice, No. 3. Marriage, No. 5. Marriage, No. 2 (kk). Fee, No. 10. Helpless minor, No. 3. Fee, No. 1. Pathological sequence. No. 23. Amputation, No. 1. Division of pension, No. ff. Marriage, No. 3 (b). Commencement, No. 11. Marriage, No. 3 (c). Marriage, No. 2 (1). Marriage, No. 2 (aa). Division of pension. No. 13. Service, No. 22. Marriage, No. 15. Discharge, No. 4. Declarations, No. 8. Increase, No. 7. Commencement, No. 9. Marriage, No. 2 (t) Attorneys, No. 18. Dependent jiarents, No. 2. Desertion, No. 4 (d) . Marriage, No. 2 (y). Marriage, No. 2 (p). Rate and rating. No. 11. Adulterous cohabitation, No. 2. Limitation, No. 1. Service, No. 7. Attorneys, No. 6. Fee, No. 1. Anterebellion service and pen- sion, No. 1. Service, No. 10. Attorneys, No. 9. 11 12 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Tabic of cuscH reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decision,^, etc. — Continued. Name. Boedeker, Henry Bonne veau, Theresa (widow) Boyle, Julia (mother) Brady, Mary (widow) Buck, George, jr Burgess, John A Burns, Josephine (widow ) Burton, Jennette (widow) Bush, Sarah (widow) Bailey, Milton W Baltzer, George Bennett, James Biggers, Allen (minor of) Bird, Daniel (father) Borthwick, Charles F., alias Brown Boss, Maria L. (alleged widow) Bonday, Lany (widow) Bowles, Harvey E Brennecke, Fred Bruner, Mathias M Buchanan, Sarah (widow) Baltzer, Francis Becker, Adolph Bennett, Clara M Bennison, Samuel Berry, Samuel Blaisdell, John '. Blitch, Kathrina Bowman, Samuel S Brantigam, Maria Brown, Andrew J Brown, Minerva Buckler, Wesley, et al. (minors) Burke, Mary E. (alleged widow) Burns, Henry P., alias Pat. H Burton, Reuben (father) Beardslee, C R., alias Barclay Benson, John _ Bills, Hannah J. (widow) Brick, George J. (insane) Briggs, Henrietta (widow) Burgoyne, Annie D. (widow) Burke, Margaret (mother) Burke, SanfordP Bullock, Lovell Burton, Rebecca (mother) Beatty, George R Berger, Charles W , Blaisdell, William (deceased) Volume and page. Bonsall, William I Bridge, Emily C. (widow)... Brobstv. Brobst Brooks, Mary (widow) Brown, Eliza C. (widow) Bunch, Babbitt (minors of) . 9P.D. 9P.D. 9P.D. 9P.D. 9P.D. ,9P.D. 9P.D. 9P.D. 9P.D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 10 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. 11 P. D. P.D.,332 11 P. D., 12 P. D. 12 P. D.. 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D., 13 P. D., 13 P. D., 13 P. D., 13 P. D., 13 P. D., 13P.D., 13 P. D., 13 P. D., 13 P. D., ,207 ,507 ,287 ,;«r> ,290 ,170 ,197 , 31 ,144 ,150 , 37 443 124 104 249 36 139 133 19 46 423 516 185 195 202 210 503 247 348 ,234 ,197 ,362 294 264 221 445 147 4.9 182 129 379 244 509 192 393 465 283 162 218 201 188 Chapter of digest and index number. Service, No. 5. Service, No. 14. Dependent parents. No. 5. Service, No. 8. Practice, No. 4. Fee, No. 7. Payment of pension. No. 1. Marriage, No. 3 (a). Desertion, No. 2. Fee, No. 7. Restoration, No. 1. Rate and rating. No. 7. Minors, No. 2. Dependent parents, No. 1 . Res judicata. No. 3. Marriage, No. 15. Service, No. 4. Service, No. 7. Service, No. 10. Evidence, No. 6. Marriage, No. 3 (c). Lineof duty. No. 11. Disability, No. 5. Estoppel, No. 1. Fee, No. 17. Declarations, No. 4. Aid and attendance. No. 4. Dependent parents. No. 2. Jurisdiction, No. 1. Death cause; No. 5. Practice, No. 16. Marriage, No. 2 (v). Marriage, No. 12. Evidence, No. 10. Desef tion, No. 8. Legitimacy, No. 3. Evidence, No. 7. Attorneys, No. 11. Divorce, No. 5. Jurisdiction, No. 2. Limitation, No. 5. Marriage, No. 3 (c). Dependent parents. No. 4. Desertion, No. 3 (a). Reduction, No. 2. Dependent parents. No. 6. Pathological sequence. No. 13. Restoration, No. 3. Jurisdiction, No. 4; practice, Nc. 27. Rerating, No. 3. Pathological sequence. No. 12. Division of pension. No. 12. Reimbursement, No. 2. Accrued pensions. No. 9. Marriage, No. 8. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 13 Tahle of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page, Chapter of digest and index number. Butler, Bridget (widow) Buzick V. Buzick Ball, Robert H.- --.- Barney, "Wilson S.. _ -.. Bassett. Mary C, now Fleming (as minor sister ) . Bell, James R-.. -- Bluford, John (minor of). .' Boazman, Eliza (widow) Bowman v. Bowman Bowman, Jeremiah Boyd, Melissa (widow) Brechbiel, Anthony J. (minors of) Breezly, Eliza (widow).. Brown, Catharine A. (widcw) Brown, Eliza G. (widow) Buck r. Buck Bugbee, Carlos R. (widow of).. Burdette v. Burdette, alias Oakley Burkhead, James F. (minors of ) Burnham v. Burnham Burns, Mary A. (widow) Button & Strunk v. Strunk Byrd, Nancy (widow) , Byrns v. Byrns. Brooks, Lucy (widow).. Brown, Mark W. (attorney). Bedinger, D. L. (attorney) Bean, Susan L. (widow). Bishop, James H Blue, Alice C. (widow) , Brown v. Brown Barker v. Barker -. , Bartoo v. Bartoo Bartlett, Sarah A. (widow) Baldwin. Ruth B. (widow). Bostor, Bethany F. (widow) Brooks, D. L. (widow).. Bolds, Charles, or Bowles Barker, Uzal (claimant) Barnett, Harriet (mother)... C. Cahal, Ann (alleged widow) Caldwell, James ., Case, Luther Clarkson, Mary A. (widow) Commissioner of Pensions : Cook, Winnif red J. (widow) Cox, Helena (minor of Joseph) Cralle, J. B.,&Co. (attorneys) Crittenden, Henry Chatfield,AlonzoB Childers, Isaac B Childers, Priscilla (alleged widow) Christie, Indiana (alleged widow) 13P.D.,234 13 P. D., 143 14 P. D., 228 14 P. D., 524 14 P. D., 489 14 P. D., 224 14 P. D., 491 14P.D.,355 14 P. D., 120 14 P. D., 495 14 P. D., 279 14 P. D., 114 14 P. D., 442 14 P. D., 375 14 P. D., 106 14 P. D., 150 14P.D.,438 14 P. D., 146 14 P. D., 24 14 P. D., 191 14 P. D., 199 14 P. D., 17 14 P. D., 347 14 P. D., 404 15P.D., 96 15 P. D., 109 15 P. D., 359 15 P. D., 18 15 P. D., 276 15 P. D., 378 15 P. D., 14 15 P. D., 56 16 P. D., 136 15 P. D., 290 15 P. D., 413 15 P. D., 308 15 P. D., 392 15 P. D., 51 15 P. D., 492 15 P. D., 500 9 P. D., 127 9P.D.,486 9P.D., 72 9P.D.,299 9P.D.,136 9P.D., 12 9P.D., 26 9 P. D., Ill 9P.D., 66 10 P. D., 10 P. D., 10 P. D., 10 P. D., 99 Marriage. No. 2 (a). Division of pension. No. 4. Attorneys, No. 13. Rate and rating, No. 10. Limitation, No. 1. Navy pension, No. 2. Marriage, No. 15. Marriage, No. 2 (f). Division of pension, No. 15. Line of duty. No. 16. Divorce, No. 9. Line of duty, No. 7. Marriage, No. 12. Desertion, No. 4 (b). Restoration, No. 3. Division of pension, No. 15. Divorce, No. 5. Division of pension, No. 15. Limitation, No. 6. Division of pension. No. 4. Fee, No. 22. Marriage, No. 1. Marriage, No. 10. Division of pension, No. 4. Adulterous cohabitation. No. Attorneys, No. 2. Attorneys, No. 20. Dependent parents. No. 2. Desertion, No. 7. Discharge, No. 4. Division of pension. No. 8. Division of pension. No. 10, Division of pension, No. 18. Marriage, No. 2 (f). Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Marriage, No. 9. Marriage, No. 11. Service, No. 3. Attorneys, No. 11. Evidence, No. 10. Marriage, No. 7. Rate and rating. No. 2. Practice, No. 6. Dependent widow, No. 1. Fee, No. 3. Contributory negligence, No. 1 Helpless minor. No. 1. Fee, No. 6. Rerating, No. 5. Construction of statutes, No. 2. Rate and rating. No. 2. Evidence, No. 10. Marriage, No. 2 (oo). 14 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to lo, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Clark, Andrew G Cock, George B.. Comstock, Harriet (alleged widow) Conklin , Philip J . ( minor of) Conroy, Catharine (alleged widow) Cooper, Emma M. (widow) -• Cralle, J. B. , & Co. (attorneys) Carpenter, Alfred Cashner, Annie C. (widow) Chase, Ransom J Coburn,Mary (widow) Coburn, Phebe Ann, now Bobbins . Collins, Martin Commissioner of Pensions Coney, Patrick H. (attorney) Conover v. Conover Covert, William M Cralle, J. B. , «fc Co. (attorneys) Cunningham, Andrew G Caldwell, Oscar Campbell, Andrew Champlin, Amy (mother) Cleveland, Andrew B. Clough, Phoebe A. (widow) Clark, Harvey Clark, Jacob S Coats I'. Coats Codner, Susan (widow) Collins, Amy (widow) Collins, Hiram (father ) Cdnklin, Watie D. (widow) Cook, Cassilly C- Cooke, Annie (widow) Cooper V. Cooper Cove, Elizabeth (mother) Crawford v. Crawford Crysler, Susan (widow) Cuchfil, Fannie (widow) Cahoe, Sarah (widow) Certain, Bates T Chase, Eliza (widow ) Christopher v. Christopher Christy, Margaret (widow) Cole, Katy (widow)... Coomer, Christine (widow) Cooper V. Cooper Cousens, Katie Craig, Mary W. (widow) Crume v. Crume Calhoun, James ( deceased) Capper, Henry M Carr, William H Carrier, Laura E. (widow) Chambers, Patrick (father) Churn, Peggy (widow) Volume and page, 10 P. D. ,271 10 P. D. , 39 10 P. D. ,220 10 P. D. ,368 10 P. D. ,162 10 P. D. ,434 10 P. D. ,412 11 P. D. ,429 11 P. D. ,149 11 P. D. ,483 11 P. D. , 43 11 P. D. ,403 11 P. D. ,206 11 P. D. ,351 11 P. D. .490 11 P. D. ,524 11 P. D. ,195 11 P. D. , 25 11 P. D. ,317 12 P. D. ,331 12 P. D. ,155 12 P. D. , 24 12 P. D. , 17 12 P. D. ,486 12 P. D. ,453 13 P. D. , 70 12 P. D. ,507 12 P. D. ,;M2 12 P. D. ,292 12 P. D. ,361 12 P. D. ,258 12 P. D. ,188 12 P. D. ,116 12 P. D. ,163 12 P. D. ,472 12 P. D. ,364 12 P. D. 139 12 P. D. ,450 13 P. D. 96 13 P. D. 413 13 P. D. 49 13 P. D. 383 13 P. D. ,313 13 P. D. ,105 13 P. D. ,398 13 P. D. 208 13 P. D. 400 13 P. D. 259 13 P. D. 424 14 P. D. 1.52 14 P. D. 264 14 P. D. ,201 14 P. D. ,300 14 P. D. 474 14 P. D. ,445 Chapter of digest and index number. Practice, No. 6. Pathological sequence. No. 19. Marriage, No. 4. Helpless minor. No. 3. Marriage, No. 12. Divorce, No. 2. Fee, No. 11. Attorneys, No. 11. Fee, No. 4. Evidence, No. 15. Marriage, No. 12. Estoppel, No. 2. Service, No. 22. Accrued pensions, No. 4. Attorneys, No. 11. Evidence, No. 11. Estoppel, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 9. Pathological sequence. No. 20. Rate and rating, No. 8. Evidence, No. 14. Dependent parents, No. 3. Commencement, No. 7. Pathological sequence. No. 6. Pathological sequence, No. 2. Aid and attendance. No. 2. Division of pension, No. 4. Death cause, No. 11. Marriage, No. 12. Dependent parents, No. 4. Adulterous cohabitation, No. 10. Berating, No. 2. Fraud and mistake, No. 1. Diyision of pension. No. 1 . Dependent parents. No. 4. Division of pension. No. 7. Restoration, No. 2. Desertion, No. 4(a). Marriage, No. 6. Attorneys, No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (r ) . Division of pension. No. 18. Death cause, No. 13. Pathological sequence, No. 10. Commencement, No. 1. Divorce, No. 3 Appeals, No. 5. Disloyalty, No. 9. Division of pension. No. 15. Reimbursement, No. 4. Amputation, No. 1 . Pathological sequence, No. 17. Death cause, No. 6. Legitimacy, No. 7. Marriage, No. 2 (oo). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 15 Tabic of cases reported in volumes 9 to lo, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Claggett, Emily ( widow ) Clark, Sarah, n^e Phillips (widow). Clarke i'. Clarke Coney, Patrick H. (attorney) Connell, William Cook, Jane (widow) - - . Courtney, Edward T ..._ Cralle, J. B., & Co. (attorneys) Crissey v. Crissey Cummings, Anna E. (widow) Curtis, SamuelT Clark, John Corey, P. H. (widow) Clements, M. C. (widow ) Cashman v. Cashman Curtis V. Curtis Cornell, Isabella Volume and page. Cofleld, James, alias William' Scofleld (mi- nors of ) . Cash, Rosannah (widow) Coon, Amanda M. (widow)... Collins, Mary F. (widow) Cavanaugh, Patrick Caperton, James O Conner, Mary E. (widow) Cutter, Richard H Clark, Squire... Corte, Ellen (widow) Crowley v. Crowley... D. Davis, Evaline (widow) Davis, John (minors of) Dees, Alexander W Dempsey, Annie (widow) Dennis, Annie, formerly Reno. Drake, George W.. Dudgeon, Joseph A Duffle, John H. (attorney) Duggins, Dorens, now Nance Duval, James _ Dump, Samuel B Dyer, David H Dalrymple, Wesley Daniels, Eliza A. (mother) Darling, Elizabeth Darling, Elizabeth (mother) Davis, Chauncey Davis, Francis M Davis, Hiram A Davis, Margaret E. Davis, Mark... Davis, Norman Decker, Demmon S Delo, Daniel M-. Dudley, W. W. (attorney) 14 P. D. , 84 14 P. D. ,213 14 P. D. ,479 14 P. D. ,328 14P.D. ,371 14 P. D. ,426 14 P. D. ,518 14 P. D. ,276 14 P. D. ,334 14 P. D. ,365 14 P. D. ,298 15 P. D. ,410 15 P. D. ,203 15 P. D. ,324 15 P. D. ,221 15 P. D. ,143 15 P. D. ,407 15 P. D. ,386 15 P. D. ,103 15 P. D. ,240 15 P. D. ,258 15 P. D. ,362 15 P. D. ,332 15 P. D. ,201 15 P. D. ,366 15 P. D. ,294 15 P. D. ,427 15 P. D. ,567 9P.D. , 2 9P.D. ,151 9P.D. ,455 9P.D. ,149 9P.D. 243 9P.D. 273 9P.D. ,413 9P.D. ,402 9P.D. ,402 9P.D. 218 9P.D. ,416 9P.D. , 87 10 P. D. ,250 10 P. D. ,153 10 P. D. ,244 10 P. D. ,299 10 P. D. , 12 10 P. D. ,270 10 P. D. ,403 10 P. D., 403, 236 10 P. D. ,185 10 P. D. 147 10 P. D. ,198 10 P. D. ,319 . 10 P. D. ,144 Chapter of digest and index number. Adulterous cohabitation. No. 5. Line of duty. No. 14. Division of pension, No. 8. Attorneys, No. 10. Dependent parents, No. 4. Declarations, No. 5. Line of duty. No. 15. Fee, No. 23. Division of pension. No. 17. Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Service, No. 3. Appeals, No. 8. Dependent widow, No. 4. Dependent widow, No. 5. Division of pension, No. 1. Division of pension, No. 20. Helpless minor. No. 3. Legitimacy, No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (d). Marriage. No. 3 (t). Marriage, No. 2 (z). Practice, No. 1. Rerating, No. 6. Service, No. 3. Service, No. 7. Service, No. 24. Vicious habits. No. 2. Division of pension. No. 15. Dependent widow, No. 1. Minors, No. 1. Fraud and mistake. No. 1. Do. Marriage, No. 12. Jurisdiction, No. 3, Rate and rating, No. 3. Fee, No. 4. Do. Res judicata. No. 1. Desertion, No. 3 (a). Service, No. 3. Appeals, No. 3. Dependent parents. No. 3. Dependent parents, No. 6. Dependent parents, No. 7. Practice, No. 11. Service, No. 10. Attorneys, No. 18. Do. Rate and rating. No. 4. Fee, No. 8. Do. Evidence, No. 7. Fee, No. 6. 16 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Tahle of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page Chapter of digest and index number. Dupra, Mary J. (widow) Dronant, Joseph (deceased) Dare, Simeon W Dougherty, S. W., & Co. (attorneys) Decker, Sarah M. (widow) De Gough, Mary M. (widow) Dilley,AsaH - Dilworth, Emily O. (widow) Dolan, Harla (minor of)... Dolan, Mary E. (widow) - Dorgan, Johanna (widow) Douglas, George "W. (minors of) Dudley, "W. W. (attorney) Denny, Henry Devening, Ellen (widow) -. Dyer, David (father) Dana, Diana M. (widow) Daugherty v. Doherty Davis, Louisa (widow) Delozier v. Delozier Dunn V. Dunn. Durnell, George B Duross, James Dustin V. Dustin ..'. Daniels, Harriet (widow) Dasher, Mary (widow) Davis, Maggie (widow) Davis, Margaret A. (widow) Demaree, Dottie M. (sister) Demo V. Demo De Ortega, P. M. (widow) Dolan, Thos. J. (father). Draper, Mary E. (widow) Dudley, W. W., & Co. (attorneys) Do Do. Davis,Isabelle,formerly Henderson (mother) Davis, Annie (widow) Disaga, Franz J Dunn, MoUie (widow) Davis, Sarinda (widow) Draper, Martha (alleged widow) Daughtrey, Lenetta A. (widow) Dobbs, Elisha (minors of) E. Edwards, Thomas J Ellis, George (deceased) Elston, Lucinda (widow) Emmons, Angeline Engleman, Charles Earl, Elvin Eaves, Simon P. (deceased) Elberson, Henry (minor of ) Elliott, Mary H. (mother) 10 P. D , 86 10 P. D ,144 11 P. D. ,431 11 P. D. , 49 11 P. D. ,200 UP.D. ,336 11 P. D. ,257 11 P. D. ,459 11 P. D. , 62 11 P. D. , 62 11 P. D. ,437 11 P. D. ,448 UP.D. ,496 13 P. D. ,226 12 P. D. ,434 12 P. D. ,401 13 P. D. ,272 13 P. D. ,302 13 P. D. ,129 13 P. D. ,176 13 P. D. ,422 13 P. D. ,226 13 P. D. ,222 13 P. D. , 77 14 P. D. ,434 UP.D. ,257 UP.D. ,344 UP.D. ,408 U P. D. , 4 UP.D. ,394 U P. D. ,326 U P. D. ,294 UP.D. ,456 UP.D. ,186 UP.D. 273 15 P. D. 100 15 P. D. 335 15 P. D. 278 15 P. D. 430 15 P. D. 223 15 P. D. 447 15 P. D. 283 15 P. D. 44 15 P. D. 488 9P.D. 340 9P.D. 223 9P.D. 502 9P.D. 129 9P.D. 47 10 P. D. 176 10 P. D. 177 UP.D. 150 UP.D. 34 Disloyalty, No. 2. Fee, No. 6. Commencement, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 12. Fraud and mistake. No. 3. Rate and rating, No. 3. Declarations, No. 6. Death cause. No. 5. Do. Do. Evidence, No. 13. Minors, No. 1. Fee, No. 16. Service, No. 16. Marriage, No. 4. Dependent parents. No. 8. Marriage, No. 4. Division of pension. No. 13. Marriage, No. 15. Practice, No. 10. Division of pension. No. 12. Service, No. 23. Pathological sequence. No. 24. Division of pension. No. 13. Declarations, No. 2. Service, No. 22. Marriage, No. 2 (p). Service, No. 3. Dependent brothers and sisters, No. 1. Division of pension. No. 4. Discharge, No. 5. Dependent parents. No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (s). Attorneys, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 10. Dependent parents. No. 2. Dependent parents. No. 10. Divorce, No. 4. Insane person. No. 3. Marriage, No. 2 (b). Marriage, No. 2 (qq). Marriage, No. 8. Service, No. 3. Marriage, No. 2 (b). Attorneys, No. 11. Declarations, No. 2. Dependent widow, No. 1. Death cause. No. 2. Disability, No. 2. Rate and rating, No. 2. Declarations, No. 2. Fee agreement. No. 1. Rank, No. 2. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 17 Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Ellis, Alphonso "W Ellis, Emily, v. Leroy Ellis English, R. G -.. Easley, Daniel M. (minors of). Eborn, Caroline (widow) Eldridge, Henrietta (widow) . Ellis, Eliza J. (widow) Edwards, Oscar B Elmore, S., nee Long (widow) Enflnger. John Easter, William Edington, Julia Elliott v. Elliott Ensor, Delbert H - Eveland, Daniel Eveland, Eliza J. (widow) Evans, Charles.. Earle, George H , Elliott, Mary A Eberlein, Katharina (widow). Eaton, Charles A F. Farmer, William H Fagin, Ann (widow) Featherly , William Fellows, John W Filler, Ida E. (widow) Fitch, Martin B Fitzpa trick, Samuel Fleener, Andrew J Flourney , Charles H Fox, Elizabeth W. (widow) .. Foote, C. E. (attorney) Ford, Dan. B Frank, Francis Fritz, Elizabeth (widow). FuUbright, Miles F Fane, Amanda (now Smith).. Fetterly, Jerome Foote, C. E. (attorney) Fuller, Sally A. (widow) Finley, William Fisk, Mary J. (widow) Fitchett, Frank (father) Fitzgarield, James Fitzpatrick, John Forbes, Andrew Foster, Florence E. (widow) . . Filones v. Filones Fisher v. Fisher Fisher, Rebecca J. (widow) ... Fleagle r. Fleagle Fowler, Sarah A. (widow) 13070—06 2 11 P. D. , 93 11 P. D. ,288 IIP.D. ,177 12 P. D. ,179 12 P. D. ,287 12 P. D. ,316 12 P. D. ,159 13 P. D. ,352 13 P. D. ,435 13 P. D. ,248 14 P. D. ,172 14 P. D. ,362 14 P. D. ,472 14 P. D. , 81 14 P. D. , 40 14 P. D. ,141 15 P. D. ,359 15 P. D. , 1 15 P. D. , 23 15 P. D. ,375 15 P. D. ,232 9P.D. , 4 9P.D. , 62 9P.D. ,106 9P.D. ,370 9P.D. ,126 9P.D. ,481 9P.D. ,171 9P.D. ,133 9P.D. ,259 9P.D. . 5 9P.D. ,340 9P.D. ,137 9P.D. , 68 9P.D. ,193 9P.D. ,146 10 P. D. ,254 10 P. D. ,460 10 P. D. ,147 10 P. D. ,238 11 P. D. ,410 11 P. D. ,162 11 P. D. 167 11 P. D. 462 11 P. D. 490 11 P. D. 329 11 P. D. 480 12 P. D. 237 12 P. D. 336 12 P. D. 417 12 P. D. , 56 12D.D. ,521 Declarations, No. 7. Division of pension, No. 2. Service, No. 3. Res judicata, No. 2. Marriage, No. 2 (cc). Restoration, No. 2. Marriage, No. 15. Commencement, No. 1. Restoration, No. 2. Disloyalty, No. 9. Attorneys, No. 18. Adulterous cohabitation, No. 7. Division of pension, No. 16. Line of duty, No. 17. Commencement, No. 10. Restoration, No. 4. Attorneys, No. 20. Prior soundness. No. 1. Service, No. 3. Do. Service, No. 8. Certificate of medical examina tion, No. 1. Adulterous cohabitation. No. 2. Disability, No. 3. Rate and rating. No. 3. Service, No. 5. Aid and attendance, No. 1. Pending claim. No. 1. Disability, No. 1. Commencement, No. 3. Marriage, No. 4. Attorneys, No. IL Do. Disability, No. 3. Anterebellion service and pen- sion, No. 2. Disloyalty, No. 1. Marriage, No. 15. Attorneys, No. 8. Fee, No. 8. Decree of nullity. No. 1. Navy pension. No. 1. Commencement, No. 1. Marriage, No. 15. Pathological sequence, No. 20. Attorneys, No. 11. Origin, No. 1. Pathological sequence, No. 21, Division of pension, No. 10, Division of pension, No. 9, Marriage, No. 3 (b). Division of pension, No. 4. Service, No, 10, 18 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to lo, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Fox, Cora B. (minor) Franklin, Alice and Ellen (widows) Fanning v. Fanning Foote, C. E. (attorney) Forbin v. Forbin Frank, Sam D Fritts y. Fritts Fleming, Mary C, nee Basse tt (minor sister) Fletcher, William, & Co. (attorneys) Frederick v. Frederick Fuerst, Josephine (widow) - Fane, Amanda, alias Lyons (insane widow) Fish, Benjamin R G. Geiger, Helen M. (widow) Gilbert, George "W Gillcoflf, Rebecca J. (widow J. Barton) Goard, John R Goin, Frederick P Goodin , Isaac Granless, John W Gallich, Anna M. (widow) Gass, Rhoda A. (widow) Gates, Johanna (widow) Germain, Louisa C. (widow) Gilder, Miles Grebe, M. R. Wm... Gamer, Thomas (father) Germain Louisa C. (widow) Guernsey, Charles F. M Griffin, Margaret (widow) Gabriel, Frangoise Ganoe, Gideon Geary, George Gill, Nicholas Glover, Lettia (widow) Goforth, I. B., alias Gordon Gray, Harriet (mother) Green, Ann (widow) Gardner, Thomas F Gembe, Mary (widow) Gillespie, John (minors of) Gilliland, Mary J. (widow) Goodman, Mary A (widow) Graves, James R. (minors of) Gamble, Charlotte (widow) Gee, Cora, now Stol worth (mother) Goshorn, E., nee Vallean Graziani, Mattie (widow) Griswold, E. S., now Lamb (widow) Groner, Cornelius F Gibson, Hardy Gardner, Mary D. (widow) Green r. Green Gourick, David A. (attorney) 12 P. D., 102 12 P. D., 505 13 P. D., 161 13 P. D., 444 13 P. D., 120 13 P. D., 362 13 P. D., 24 14 P. D., 489 14 P. D., 172 15P.D, 38 15 P. D., 486 15 P. D., 503 15 P. D., 548 9P, 9P, 9P, 9P, 9P, 9P, 9P, 10 P. 10 P. 10 P, 10 P. 10 P. 10 P. IIP. 11 P. D. IIP. IIP. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 14 P. 14 P. 14 P. 14 P. 14 P. 14 P. 15 P. 15 P. 15 P. 15 P. D., 28 D.,279 D.,406 D.,355 D.,423 D.,261 D.,285 D.,311 D., 9 D., 28 D.,393 D.,167 D., 92 D.,297 ,66,131 D., 64 D.,282 D.,382 D., 50 D.,294 D., 54 D.,497 D.,253 D.,131 D.,306 D., 84 D.,460 D.,280 D., 90 D., 37 D.,148 D.,156 D.,109 D.,328 D.,450 D.,318 Legitimacy, No. 5. Marriage, No. 4. Practice, No. 10. Attorneys, No. 9. Division of pension. No. 12. Rate and rating. No. 9. Division of pension. No. 16. Limitation, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 13. Division of pension. No. 20. Practice, No. 2. Marriage, No. 15. Service, No. 22. Service, No. 4. Disloyalty, No. 1. Line of duty. No. 2. Fee, No. 8. Aid and attendance. No. 1. Medical examination, No. 1. Practice, No. 4. Divorce, No. 2. Dependent widow. No. 1. Dependent widow, No. 5. Marriage, No. 4. Fee, No. 12. Evidence, No. 4. Dependent parents, No. 4. Marriage, No. 13. Disloyalty, No. 4. Service, No. 19. Marriage, No. 2 (p). Disability, No. 7. Rate and rating. No. 8. Declarations, No. 7. Marriage, No. 2 (o). Desertion, No. 3 (a). Dependent parents. No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Evidence, No. 7. Decree of nullity, No. 4. Declai*ations, No. 6. Marriage, No. 4. Fee, No. 21. Minors, No. 2. Marriage, No. 15. Dependent parents. No. 4. Restoration, No. 2. Helpless minor, No. 4. Restoration, No. 2. Disability, No. 10. Attorneys, No. 2. Commencement, No. 14. Division of pension, No. 13. Fee, No. 26. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 19 Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Gleeman, Fred Getman, Oscar Gore, William H Gaebel, now Rohr (widow ) Gillespie, Moses Gregoi*y, Thomas J. Gregg, Isaac D :. Grove, Alf ordine (widow) H. Hamilton, A. S. (minors of) Haffner, Mary (widow) Hall, AlVaH Hall, Elvira (widow) Hall, Laura (widow), now Gregg . Halloway , Daniel (minors of) Hankinson, Obediah P Harlow, John R -. Harris, "William Harrison, JamesE Haskett, Andrew W Hayford, Ira W 1 Haynie, Henry N Helmer, Henry A Helve, Matilda (widow) Hess, Morris Hiett, Stephen Hird, JohnW Hockey, William (minors of) Hoepfner, Louisa S. (widow) Hoffman, M. M. (widow of Oskar) Howard, Millie (now Payne) Hubley, John S Hughes, W. H. (deceased) Hulse, William Hummel, Elsie (widow) Hunt, Lucy (dependent sister) Hurst, Mary Ann (mother) Hagarty, William H Hardy, John A Harms, Maria (widow) Hawkins, Margaret (widow) Hayne, James (minor of) Hawkins, Sarah J. (widow) Hebel, Charles Heinrichs, William Heintz, Sybilla (widow) Hendrickson, Joseph E Hetherington, Aura (widow) Higgins, Anna (widow) Hodgkin, Sally (widow) Hoffman, George M HoUis, Lucius S Hudson, Tony Hughes, Ascha (mother) Hughes, Mai'y E. (widow) 15 P. D., 54 15 P. D., 150 15 P. D., 299 15 P. D., 381 15 P. D., 130 15 P. D., 396 15 P. D., 340 15 P. D., 540 ,165 , 17 ,439 , 18 ,392 , 54 , 73 7 P. D., 437 9 P. D., 169 9P.D, 9P.D, 9P.D, 9P.D, 9P.D, 9P.D, 9P.D 9 P. D., 433 9P.D., 8 9 P. D., 307 9P.D.,304 9 P. D., 130 9 P. D., 249 9 P. D., 252 9 P. D., 313 9 P. D., 263 9 P. D., 164 9 P. D., 497 9P.D.,227 9 P. D., 188 9P.D., 48 9 P. D., 152 9 P. D., 121 9 P. D., 311 9 P. D., 160 9P.D.,406 10 P. D., 359 10 P. D., 64 10 P. D., 453 10 P. D., 191 IOP.D.,345 10 P. D., 370 IOP.D.,448 10 P. D., 321 10 P. D., 289 10 P. D., 376 IOP.D.,^5 10 P. D., 110 10 P. D., 326 10 P. D., 268 10 P. D., 414 10 P. D., 365 IOP.D.,390 10 P. D., 67 Line of duty. No. 6. Pathological sequence, No. 1. Rerating, No. 6. Restoi-ation, No. 2. Service, No. 3. Do. Service, No. 38. Marriage, No. 2 (11). Abandonment, No. 1. Practice, No. 2. Rate and rating. No. 13. Adulterous cohabitation. No. 3. Death cause, No. 3. Service, No. 1. Service, No. 8. Increase, No. 1. Evidence, No. 17. Line of duty. No. 8. Accnied pensions. No. 2. Aid and attendance, No. 1. Service, No. 12. Line of duty. No. 17. Dependent widow, No. 1. Vicious habits. No. 1. Commencement, No. 4. Disability, No. 3. Appeals, No. 2. Marriage, No. 4. Line of duty. No. 1. Army nurses. Nor 1. Reduction, No. 1. Limitation, No. 2. Reduction, No. 1. Discharge, No. 2. Limitation, No. 1. Rank, No. 1. Declarations, No. 5. Increase, No. 2. Death cause. No. 4. Attorneys, No. 4. Line of duty, No. 5. Line of duty, No. 6. Evidence, No. 14. Practice, No. 6. Evidence, No. 10. Line of duty. No. 4- Desertion, No. 2. ' Marriage, No. 2 (a). Dependent widow, No. 1. Declarations, No. 4. Rate and rating, No. 2. Declarations, No. 2. Practice, Nos. 8 and 36. Dependent widows, No. 1. 20 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. HaiTis, Lucinda (widow) Harshfield, McKinzy Hartley, William (minors of) Heininger, Lewis (attorney) Henderson, Elizabeth (widow) Higgins, Annie (widow) Hobson, John C. (deceased) Hodgman, Eliza (mother) Hopper, Pinckney Horan, Mary (mother) Hughes, James ( father) Hutchinson, Calvin A Hall, Daniel T. (minors of ) Hantch v. Hantch.. Harnden, Margaret E. (widow) Harrington, Harvey .- Harris v. Harris Harvey, Lola T Hendrickson, Jos. E Hickerson, Chas. W Hobart, Edw. L , Holtorf , John C - Horn, Myers (minor of) Howell, Rebecca C. (widow) Hughes, Jos. B Human, J. M. Hunter, Jos. H. (attorney) Huston, Annie, alias Richardson Haines v. Haines .-. Hale, A. M., now Butterbaugh (widow). Hall, James C Hallett, Emma J. (widow) Harriman, R. (widow) Hawke, H. L. (widow) Hayes V. Hayes Head v. Head Hedgepeth, K. (widow) Henderson, Jones A Hilton, Miel - Hogg V. Hogg Howard, H. D. (widow) Hyndman, L. H. (widow) .-- Hanley , William Heinkel, Joseph Heininger, Lewis (attorney) Hendershot v. Hendershot Herbert, Mary C. (widow) Hill, Camden L Hofrichter, M. A. (widow) Hopkins, Frances (widow) Hunter V. Hunter .- Hyatt V. Hyatt Hyatt, Fred W Hosier, L.J Humbtirt V. Humbert Volume and page, t 11 P. D., 181 1 11 P. D. 492 11 P. D. 40 11 P. D. 508 IIP.D. 204 11 P. D. 519 11 P. D. 49 11 P. D. 18 11 P. D. 191 11 P. D. .514 11 P. D. 325 11 P. D. 51 12 P. D. 1 13 P. D. 44 12 P. D. 278 12 P. D. 109 13 P. D. 7l 12 P. D. 326 12 P. D. 269 12 P. D. 298 12 P. D. 319 12 P. D. 422 12 P. D. 365 12 P. D. 3(K) 13 P. D. 137 12 P. D. 5(J0 12 P. D. 441 12 P. D. 514 13 P. D. 142 13 P. D. 378 13 P. D. 1 13 P. D. 31 13 P. D. 184 13 P. D. 372 13 P. D. 212 13 P. D. 180 13 P. D. 349 13 P. D. 455 13 P. D. 27 13 P. D. 206 13 P. D. 448 13 P. D. 95 14 P. D. 162 14 P. D. 203 14 P. D. 269 14 P. D. 130 14 P. D. 95 14 P. D. 57 14 P. D. 80 14 P. D. 527 14 P. D. 136 14 P. D. 8 14 P. D. 367 1.5 P. D. 317 15 P. D. 133 Chapter of digest and index number. Marriage, No. 15. Attorneys, No. 14. Legitimacy, No. 4. Fee, No. 1. Marriage, No. 4. Appeals, No. 4. Attorneys, No. 12. Commencement, No. 6. Line of duty, No. 8. Fee, No. 14. Practice, No. 14. Increase, No. 10. Gixardians, No. 2. Practice, No. 17. MaiTiage, No. 12. Fee, No. 7. Division of pension, No. 4. Marriage, No. 4. Line of duty. No. 4. Origin, No. 2. Disability, No. 8. Pathological sequence. No. 4. Helpless minor. No. 3. Marriage, No. 2 (gg). Desertion, No. 5. Service, No. 20. Fee, No. 7. Marriage, No. 2 (kk). Division of pension. No. 4. Restoration, No. 2. Origin, No. 3 Dependent widow. No. 3. Pathological sequence. No. 9. Death cause. No. 12. Division of jjension. No. 4. Do. Disloyalty, No. 11. Increase, No. 5. Attorneys, No. 13. Practice, No. 20. Dependent widow, No. 4. Special act. No. 2. Practice, No. 23. Line of duty. No. 8. Attorneys, No. 19. Division of pension. No. 4. Increase, No. 6, Fraud and mistake. No. 1. Dependent widow, No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (g). Division of pension. No. 13. Practice, No. 26. Division of pension, No. 15. Attorneys, No. 18. Division of pension. No. 18. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 21 Tabic of cases reported in volumes 9 to 16, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and mdex number. Herlong, Millie (widow) Hays, R., formerly Collier (widow) Harris, Adaline (widow) -.. Hattersheim, Johanna (widow) Hughes, Annie (widow) Henley, "William Hirsch, Josephine (mother) - Hyatt, Fred W Hawley, Ella S. (widow) Hale, Geo. W Heazlit, Melissa D I. Instructions '.... Do Do -. Ingnams, H. A. (widow). - Ingalls, Laura A. (widow) J. Jacob, EUza (widow) Johannes, Charles "W Johnson, John Johnson, John M Johnson, "William (minors of ) Johnson, John Johnson. Simon (minor of ) ^.. Jones, Mary A (widow) Janney, Lee K Johnson, Ann E. (widow) Johnson, Thomas C :. Jones, "William H Jones, "William H - Juno, Emily Jacobs, Catharine Johnson , George Johnston, M. M. (widow) Johnson, John L Jones r. Jones Jackson, Jennie L. (widow) Jackson, Mary A. (mother) Jackson r. Jackson -.. Jackson, Betsey (widow) -.. Johnson, (jharles (deceased) -.. K. Kelly, Matilda L. (widow) Kelly, Susan (widow) King, C. & "Wm. B. (attorneys) King, Joseph C -. Kurtz, Gibhart Kent, Frederika (widow) Kilbee, Rebecca (widow) Knowland, James T., & Son (attorneys) ... Kaufman, Elizabeth (widow) Kennedy, Matilda I. (widow) ..- Kimball, John H 15 P. D. ,371 Identity, No. 2 15 P. D. ,186 Marriage, No. 2 (k). 15 P. D. , 30 Marriage, No. 15. 15 P. D. ,464 Marriage, No. 2 (r). 15 P. D. ,475 Restoration , No . 5 . 15 P. D. ,483 Restoration, No. 6. 15 P. D. ,443 Pathological sequence, No. 27. 15 P. D. , 96 Practice, No. 1. 15 P. D. ,493 Marriage, No. 2(e). 15 P. D. ,544 Service, No. 4. 15P.D. ,553 Divorce, No. 9. 9P.D. , 93 Declarations, No. 1. 10 P. D. ,465 Minors, No. 3. 11 P. D. , 12 Service, No. 10. 13 P. D. ,173 Marriage, No. 15. 14 P. D. ,198 Restoration, No. 2. 9P.D. ,213 Attorneys, No. 9. 9P.D. ,341 Disability, No. 11. 9P.D. 349 Aid and attendance. No. 1, 9P.D. ,5a3 Commencement, No. 2. 9P.D. 452 Helpless minor. No. 1. 10 P. D 66 Commencement, No. 2. 10 P. D. ,417 Limitation, No. 4. 10 P. D. ,297 Marriage, No. 3 (b). 11 P. D. ,5ft5 Disability, No. 6. 12 P. D. 425 Pathological sequence. No. 1. 12 P. D. 59 Increase, No. 4. 12 P. D. 215 Aid and attendance, No. 2. 12 P. D. ,525 Fee, No. 19. 12 P. D. ,354 Death cause, No. 8. 13 P. D. , 59 Marriage, No. 2 (w). 13 P. D. , 46 Service, No 27. 13 P. D. ,112 Pathological sequence, No. 15. 14 P. D. ,296 Service, No. 3. 14 P. D. ,521 Division of pension. No. 4. 15 P. D. ,a54 Death cause. No. 2. 15 P. D. ,100 Dependent parents, No. 2. 15 P. D. ,218 Division of pension. No. 15. 15 P. D. , 11 Marriage, No. 15. 15 P. D. ,539 Declarations, No. 9. 9P.D. ,201 Evidence, No 1(. 9P.D. ,418 Do. 9P.D. 478 Attorneys, No. 17. 9P.D. 430 Restoration, No. 3. 9P.D. 204 Increase, No. 9. 10 P. D. 211 Marriage, No. 2 (ee). 10 P. D. 286 Adulterous cohabitation, No. 4 10 P. D. 143 Attorneys, No. 1. 11 P. D. 106 Death cau.se, No. 5. 11 P. D. 110 Service, No. 4. P.D.,124 136 Disloyalty, No. 5. 22 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cuscfi reported in volumes 9 to lo, pension decisions, etc — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and mdex number. Kinsey , Jonathan Kirkland, Martha J. (widow) Koschwitz, Augusta M. (widow) Keiler, Anna M. (widow) Kirchner, H. (widow) Kohler, Adam - Kilmer v. Kilmer Kingsley, H. (widow) Kuhn, M. (mother) Kane, Luther C Kelley, James H Kendall r. Kendall King, Jonathan Kite, John.. Kyle, James T. (minors of i Kelley, Aaron W Kinter, Christian Kraft, Caroline (widow) I.. Laughlin, John Lee, Shadi*ack Leonard, E. S Levan, Daniel "W Lewis, Rollin-. Ligon, Edward H Limoges, Adolphus Luckingbeal, Judith S. (widow) Lalone, Margaret (widow) La Mountain, John Lane, Joseph, alias Simpson Lewis, Joseph Lockwood, Elizabeth (widow) Loeb, Nathan, alias Lyons Long, Adaline (widow) Loughry, Sophia M., v. John Loughry Lake, William (deceased ) Larkins, E. (sister of ) Leslie, John P Lester, M. N, (widow) Lake v. Lake Livengood v. Livengood Dynch, Annie (widow) Lynch r. Lynch Lawrence, James M Lamb, E. S., formerly Griswold Landon, Charles E. Lara way, A. E. (widow) Lawley, Lewis Lester, Mazilla (widow) Lockard v. Lockard Lutes, N. C. (widow) Lynch, G. W. Lewis, William C Lyon, Mary E. (widow) 11 P. D., 113 11 P. D,, 73 11 P. D., 102 12 P. D., 491 12 P. D., 296 12 P. D., 407 13 P. D., 270 13 P. D., 441 13 P. D., 241 14 P. D., 328 14 P. D., 104 14 P. D., 159 14 P. D., 466 14 P. D., 269 14 P. D., 186 15 P. D., 402 15 P. D., 440 15 P. D., 495 9P.D.,466 9 P. D., 214 9 P. D., 194 9P.D.,322 9 P. D., 216 9P.D.,366 9 P. D., 274 9P.D., 42 11 P. D., 301 11 P. D, 395 11 P. D., 422 11 P. D., 473 11 P. D., 97 IIP.D.,286 11 P. D., 499 11 P. D., 52;^ 12 P. D., 405 12 P. D., 184 12 P. D., 367 12 P. D., 340 13 P. D., 22 13 P. D., 134 13 P. D., 54 13 P. D., 347 13 P. D., 395 14 P. D., Ill 14 P. D., 83 14 P. D., 212 14 P. D., 13 14 P. D., 38 14 P. D., 45 14 P. D., 281 14 P. D., 155 15 P. D., 163 15 P. D., 174 Practice, No. 6. Marriage, No. 14. Evidence, No. 9. Pathological sequence, No. 5. Marriage, No. 1. Service, No. 21. Division of pension, No. 15. Restoration, No. 4. Dependent parents. No. 4. Attorneys, No. 10. Disloyalty, No. 10; Accrued pen- sion. No. 10. Division of pension. No. 4. Desertion, No. 4 (b). Attorneys, No. 19. Attorneys, No. 1. Amputation, No. 2. Pathological sequence, No. 26. Marriage, No. 2 (gg). Service, No. 7. Evidence, No. 6. Service, No. 7. Commencement, No. 8. Commencement, No. 1. Disloyalty, No. 1. Line of duty. No. 2. Declarations, No. 2. Evidence, No. 12. Reimbui*sement, No. 4. Attorneys, No. 18, Aid and attendance. No. 3. Marriage, No 2 (n). Age, No. 2. Divorce, No. 4. Evidence, No. 11. Accrued pensions. No. 6, Bounty land. No. 1 . Service, No. 10. Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Payment of pension. No. 3. Division of pension. No. 4. Evidence, No. 10. Division of pension. No. 12, and Practice, No. 10. Disloyalty, No. 11. Restoration, No. 2. Attorneys, No. 4. Marriage No. 2 (gg). Service, No. 3. Marriage, No. 2 (qq). Division of pen.sion. No. 4. Dependent widow. No. 4. Increase, No. 7. Attorneys, No. 6. Divorce, No. 2. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 23 Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. 8P.D. , 43 9P.D. ,338 9P.D. ,255 9P.D. ,150 9P.D. ,401 9P.D. ,437 9P.D. ,442 9P.D. ,344 9P.D. ,333 9P.D. , 74 9P.D. ,209 9P.D. , 55 9P.D. ,492 9P.D. ,353 9P.D. ,462 9P.D. , :« 9P.D. , 30 9P.D. ,123 9P.D. ,210 9P.D. , 38 10 P. D. ,118 10 P. D. ,172 10 P. D. , 18 10 P. D. , 72 10 P. D. ,281 10 P. D. , 52 10 P. D. ,109 10 P. D. ,401 10 P. D. ,182 10 P. D. ,157 10 P. D. , 78 10 P. D. , 12 10 P. D. ,101 10 P. D. ,464 10 P. D. ,425 10 P. D. 61 11 P. D. ,175 11 P. D. ,218 11 P. D. ,510 11 P. D. 494 11 P. D. 165 11 P. D. 427 11 P. D. 380 11 P. D. 55 11 P. D. 28 11 P. D. 392 11 P. D. 496 11 P. D. 215 11 P. D. 84 11 P. D. 193 11 P. D. 220 11 P. D. 183 11 P. D. 307 11 P. D. 315 Chapter of digest and index number. M. McElhaney (minors) McBride, Anna L. (widow) McCallan, James. McCollum, JohnN. McElroy, Alex. P.. McFadger, Henry McGraw, Daniel Mallon, Thomas Matthews, Robert W. Miller, Henry Miller, Mary A. (colored) Moore, Edward W Moran, Margaret (widow) Morris, EUie ( widow) Morris, Walter MulhoUan, James M Munsell, Mary (widow) Miirphy, Dennis Murray, James W Musser, W. H. (attoraey) McCarthy, Maria (widow) Mcintosh, Eppenetus W McQuay , Charles Mackrill, Henry, alias Mackey Mattick, Joshua W May, Sarah J. (widow) Mays, Benjamin R. (insane) .. Means, David M Meeker, John H.. Merritt, Maria (widow) Mong, Eliza R. (mother) Monteton, W. K. (widow) Monty, Sarah H. (widow) Morris, J. W. (attorney) Morrison, Mary F Muckenstorm, Joseph McClain, William.. McGinniss, Thomas McHarry, James. McKee, E., v. J. H. McKee Mallory , Niram W Manwell, Sarah E. (widow) Mark wood, Robert Marstellar, J. S. (minor of) ... Meade, Catharine (widow) Myers, Anne E. (widow) Miller, David G. (minors of) . . Mitchell, G. W. (attorney) Mitchell, William D Monthony, Stephen F Morgan, Rebecca C. (widow) . Morse, L. De Witt Mowery, George W Myers, Felix Abandonment, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 15. Desertion, No. 6. Evidence, No. 3. Increase, No. 1. Nonresidents, No. 1. Desertion, No. 3. Reduction, No. 2. Evidence, No. 2. Line of duty, No. 18. Marriage, No. 7. Guardians, No. 1. Death cause, No. 1. Helpless minor, No. 1. Service, No. 10. Attorneys, No. 5. Marriage, No. 10. Discharge, No. 2. Practice, No. 7. Attorneys, No. 5. Marriage, No. 2 (a). Aid and attendance, No. 2. Service, No. 16. Disloyalty, No. 1 . Payment of pension, No. 2. Pathological sequence. No. 1. Insane person. No. 1. Service, No. 11. Service, No. 7. Marriage, No. 15 Dependent parents. No. 2. Marriage, No. 16. Contributory negligence, No. 1. Fee, No. 13. Service, No. 4. Election, No. 1. Commencement, No. 5. Service, No. 4. Commencement, No. 1. Division of pension, No. 5. Rate and rating. No. 6. Marriage, No. 2 (flf) Commencement, No. 8. Line of duty. No. 10. Line of duty, No. 12. Attorneys, No. 7; Fee, No. 17. Fee, No. 16. Fee, No. 15. Line of duty. No. 11. Desertion, No. 5; Age, No. 2. Death cause, No. 5. Board of enrollment. No. 1. Pathological sequence. No. 20. Declarations, No. 2. 24 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisioms, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page . Chapter of digest and index number. Mclnturf, L. W Macentee, J. J Maddox, M. (widow) Marshall, James Medley v. Medley Merriman, M. (widow) Millard V. Millard Mills, Caroline (widow) Moody, L. J. (deceased) Moore, William Morman, M. (insane widow) Mulick, John G McCracken, William McKenney,E. (mother) Mallon, Patrick (deceased) Marsh, Mary (as widow) Martin v. Martin Mellinger, A. G Melton V. Melton Merryman, R Miller, Hezekiah Morgan, Josiah Murray, E. 8 Manson, A. M. (widow) Marshall, M. J. (widow) Marvin, Isaac Mathers, S.,n6e Miller (widow). Mechling, H. C Medlock, Rebecca (widow) Middleton, John Miller, S., now Mathers (widow) Moer, EUenA. (widow) Morley t\ Morley Morman, Thomas J Morrill, E. J. (widow) , Morris, Sion McMurtry, William P- Muller, Marie D. (widow) Mitchell V. Mitchell Mann v. Mann Meister (formerly Jordan) v Jordan Munier v. Munier Matson, Eliza (widow) Mobley, Harrison Moore, John V -.. Messenger, Emma W Mellen, Stella A. (widow) Monson, William B McAllister. Alex Mitchell, Mary E. (widow) Nichols, Hilkiah P. (deceased) Norton, John Nash, De Witt C 12 P. D. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P. 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 P. 12 P 12 P 12 P. 13 P. 13 P 13 P 13 P. 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 P, 13 P, 13 P UP, UP. UP. UP, UP UP 14 P. D. U P. D. UP.D. UP.D. UP.D. U P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 9P.D.,336 9P.D.,382 10 P. D., 141 Aid and attendance. No. 2. Line of duty. No. 6. Marriage, No. 15. Fee, No. 11. Division of pension. No. 10. Marriage, No. 2 (o). Division of pension. No. 9. Minors, No. 5. Rerating, No. 1. Increase, No. 3. Dependent widow. No. 2. Service, No. 16. Appeals, No. 6. Dependent parents, No. 4. Increase, No. 5. Marriage, No. 4. Division of pension, No. 4. Line of duty, No. 15. Practice, No. 10. Fee, No. 17. Fee, No. 21. Practice, No. 19. Fee, No. 20. Marriage, JNo. 2 (q). Divorce, No. 6. Desertion, No. 4 (f). Restoration, No. 2. Practice, No. 25. Accrued pensions, No. 11; dis- loyalty, No. 10. Commencement, No. 3. Restoration, No. 3. Do. Division of pension, No. 15. Honorable discharge. No. 1. Marriage, No. 4. Bounty land. No. 2. Desertion, No. 4 (a). Desertion, No. 4 (e). Division of pension, No. 1. Division of pension. No. 4. Division of pension. No. 13. Division of pension. No. 18. Estoppel, No. 4. Evidence, No. 14. Fee, No. 17. Marriage, No. 2 (11). Marriage, No. 11. Rate and rating. No. 8. Service, No. 3. Do. Rate and i-ating. No. 5. Desertion, No. 1. Desertion, No. 3. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 25 Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Newberry, Sarah (widow) Newhard, Edmund R Norbury, Charles, alias William Walker. Napier, Edward E Notman, Annie (widow) Neary, John E Newland, Mary (as widow) : Nicholas, Mary (widow) Nichols, B. F. (widow) Nolen, Nancy (widow) Noble, Mary E. (widow) -. Nutt V. Nutt O. Oram, James E Orr, Mary C. (widow) Otis, Dora V., now Cowley O'Grady, A., alias John Davis. Orr, Mary C Otis, Doi*a v., now Crowley ... O'Brien, Nora (widow) Orr, Adelbert L Overocker, G. H Ogden, Bettie (widow) O'Horo, Lydia E. (widow) Ouslem, Elizabeth (widow) ... Owen, John R P. Payne, Spencer Peniston. Susan C. (widow) Pepper, Helen L. (widow) Perry, Noah Peters, Galen '. Phillips, H. D. (attorney) Polk, James K. (attorney) Poarch, Emma A. (widow) Porter, Lucy P. (widow) Powers, Mary E. (widow) Patterson, Martha (widow) Paul, Jacob i Pearson, Sophia (widow) Pennoy er. Garrison (father) Phillips, H. D. (attorney) Pulver, Jonas W. (minors of) Purnell, Mollie (widow) Parmer, Esther A. (widow) Parker, May E., now Resdin Peterman, Benj. F , Peterson, Carrie (widow) Pruett, Lorenzo Pain, Fred, alias H. Foreman Palmer, A. M., now Umberger (widow) Patterson, F. A., nee Osier (widow) Payne, John W Penman, E., now Fulmer (as widow) 10 P. D., 294 10 P. D., 80 10 P. D., 261 11 P. D., 240 11 P. D., 212 13 P. D., 437 13P.D.,338 13 P. D., 286 13 P. D., 330 13 P. D., 64 14P.D.,535 14P.D.,338 9 P. D., 132 10 P. D., 348 10 P. D., 324 11 P. D., 420 11 P. D., 131 IIP.D.,338 12 P. D., 32 12 P. D., 394 12P.D.,208 13P.D., 57 15P.D.,227 15 P. D., 347 15 P. D., 158 9P.D., 50 9 P. D., 178 9P.D.,500 9P.D.,237 9 P. D., 102 P. D., 338, 377 9 P. D., 137 9P.D.,420 9 P. D., 251 9 P. D., 369 10 P. D., 8 10 P. D., 421 lOP.D., 6 10 P. D., 362 10 P. D., 250 10 P. D., 227 10 P. D., 431 11 P. D., 320 11 P. D., 103 IIP.D.,344 11 P. D., 139 IIP.D.,290 12P.D.,a51 12 P. D., 510 12 P. D ,5,29 12 P. D., 12 12 P. D.. 459 Marriage, No. 3 (a). Evidence, No. 8. Rate and rating, No. 2. Age, No. 2. Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Evidence, No. 1. Marriage, No. 10. Restoration, No. 2. Service, No. 24. Marriage, No. 2 (o). Divorce, No. 1. Division of pension, No. 18. Appeals, No. 1. Divorce, No. 2. Remarriage, No. 1. Declarations, No. 6. Marriage, No. 13. RemaiTiage, No. 1. Marriage, No. 12. Reimbursement, No. 4. Accrued pension, No. 7. Marriage, No. 2 (v). Decree of nullity, No. 6. Evidence, No. 10. Service, No. 4. Notice, No. 1; Disloyalty, No. 7. Service, No. 3. Evidence, No. 10. Evidence, No. 4. Commencement, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 15; Pee, No. 7. Attorneys, No. 11. Double pension, No. 1. Marriage, No. 14. Service, No. 4. Service, No. 10. Limitation, No. 3. Evidence, No. 10. Marriage, No. 15. Appeals, No. 3. Marriage, No. 2 (rr). Marriage, No. 2 (r). Marriage, No. 3 (a). Line of duty. No. 9. Evidence, No. 16. Marriage, No. 3 (c). Disloyalty, No. 5. Service, No. 18. Restoration, No. 2. Pee, No. 18. Disloyalty, No. 7. Death cause. No. 9. 26 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Voltune and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Pierce, I. A., v. C. I*ierce Parcell, Catherine (widow) Parker t'. Parker Perkins, H. (minors of) Peterson, D. Q Phillips, H. D. (attorney) Pick V. Pick Pierson, A. B. (minors of) Plount, Edward (minors of) Pomeroy, F. G. (widow). Powell V. Powell Prather, L. H Prentice, George W Parcell, Catherine ( widow ) Parker, Charles W Patrick, A. J Perkins, Cyrus E. (attorney) Phillips, S., now Clark (widow) Pitkin, Ruth A., nee Bugbee (widow) Plount, Edward (minor of) Post V. Post Parkman, Rosanna (widow) Q. Quinn, John R. Ruthton, Nancy Oridow) Reed, Charles L Rees, Nixon Reig, ThaddeusP Ridgeway, Basil T Robins, Levi (minors of) Robinson, Abner Rogers, William Rogers, William P Ross, William Roth, Wilhelmina (widow) Rusling, James F. (attorney) Ryan, Philip E Radwich, Imre Rappleye, Milton W Resser, Charles W. (minors of) Resser, Mary E. (widow). Richardson, Kate E. (widow) Riddle, Mary (widow) Rodkey, Elmer A. (helpless minor)... Rohn, Preston M Root, Fay F. (attorney) Rose, James Ruddick, Lindley Rupp, Rosa (widow) Rainey, James H Rankin, Lewis Ratcliffe, Kathryne A. (mother) Richards V. Richards Riddle, Lewis 12 P. D., 412 13 P. D., 450 13 P. D., 233 13 P. D., 414 13 P. D., 346 13 P. D., 25 13P.D.,299 13 P. D., 151 13 P. D., 541 13 P. D., 342 13 P. D., 236 13 P. D., 13 13 P. D., 242 14 P. D., 63 14 P. D., 388 14 P. D., 357 14 P. D, 256 14 P. D., 213 14 P. D., 438 14 P. D., 428 14 P. D., 177 15 P. D., 411 11 P. D., 25 9 P. D., 162 9P.D.,288 9P.D.,4a5 9P.D.,444 9P.D.,300 9P.D., 40 9 P. D., 362 9P.D.,399 9P.D., 96 9 P. D., 407 9 P. D., 143 9P.D., 39 9 P. D., 289 10 P. D., 68 10 P. D., 464 10 P. D., 266 10 P. D., 266 10 P. D., 409 10 P. D., 441 IOP.D.,224 10 P. D., 73 10 P. D., 167 10 P. D., 357 10 P. D., 217 10 P. D., 14 11 P. D., 327 11 P. D., 373 11 P. D., 171 11 P. D., 90 IIP.D.,252 Division of pension. No. 8. Evidence, No, 7. Division of pension. No. 13. Legitimacy, No. 6. Desertion, No. 4 (c). Fee, No. 20. Practice, No, 32. Minors, No. 2. Legitimacy, No. 8. Death cause, No. 14. Divorce, No. 3. Reimbursement, No. 4. Commencement, No. 1. Service, No. 8. Service, No. 38. Service, No. 4. Fee, No. 24. Line of duty. No. 14. Divorce, No. 5. Legitimacy, No. 8. Division of pension. No. 18. Marriage, No. 2 (ii). Attorneys, No. 9. Service, No. 8. Practice, No. 7. Rate and rating. No. 8. Pathological sequence, No. 1. Service, No. 7. Declarations, No. 2. Service, No. 9. Practice, No. 1. Service, No. 11. Desertion, No. 2. Service, No. 3. Fee, No. 2. Service,- No. 22. Service, No. 15. Fee, No. 13. Marriage, No. 10. Do. Marriage, No. 4. Marriage, No. 15. Helpless minor. No. 3. Practice, No. 9. Fee, No. 12. Fee, No. 9. Line of duty. No. 3. Discharge, No. 1. Disloyalty, No. 5. Desertion, No. 3 (a). Dependent parents. No. 2. Construction of statutes. No. 1. Disloyalty, No. 5. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 27 Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Robinson, John S Rosser, William H. (attorney) Rothery, Henry N Rothery v. Rothery Do - Rusling, James F. (attorney) - Ramsey, M. D. (widow) -• Redbird, Jack (minor of) - . Reese, M. L. (widow) Renick, Silas Rioe, M. E., nee Paulding (widow) Ross, Lucinda (widow). -- Robinson, G. W. (minor) Randall v. Randall Randall, H. (widow)... Reed, Harvey Reed, Rebecca (widow) Rich, H. C. (widow) 1 Ritter v. Ritter Robinson, Ruth E. (widow) Rumrill, Clara M. (widow) -- Rankins, Betty (widow) Rhodes, William H Ricketts, John H Robertson, George P Robinson, A. (widow) Robinson, C. (widow) Robinson, Lewis ( widow of) Rumsey, H. A. (widow) Ryerson, A. E. (widow) Romero, Antonio Ribera, Jose L. (attorney) Robb, Elizabeth (widow) Reser, John W Richardson, Nathan Riley, Emma (as widow) Raymond v. Raymond Russell, Charles F Reed, Sarah M. (widow) Ritchie, Celinda, formerly Dolan (widow) Rebenstorf , Chris. ( guardian ) Russell, Abram J Raymonds. Raymond S. Sarver, Barnabas Shreeve, Thei-esa, now Schmidt Scott, Samuel Sharer, David S. (minors of) Sharon, John H. (deceased) Shinguin, Charles E Sims, Wright Smith, Elizabeth (widow) - Smith, Katie (minor) Smith, Nana J. (widow) Smith, Sarah J. (widow) UP, IIP UP, IIP IIP 11 P. D., 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 P 13 P 12 P 13 P 18 P 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 P, 14 P, UP UP. UP, UP UP, UP UP UP 15 P 15 P, 15 P, 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P 15 P D.,390 D.,U9 D.,255 .D., 77 D.,377 150,514 D., 89 D.,517 D.,111 D., 21 D.,1U .D..474 D.,511 .D.,411 D.,237 D.,307 D., 70 D.,118 D., 40 D.,153 D.,213 D.,383 D.,273 D.,283 D.,3B4 D.,476 D.,537 D.,436 D.,290 D.,497 D.,184 D.,184 D.,106 D., 8 D., 76 D.,389 D.,298 D.,364 D.,462 D.,470 D., 28 D.,139 D.,496 9P.D.,294 9P.D., 78 9P.D., 70 9 P. D., 189 9 P. D., 272 9P.D.,119 9 P. D., 158 9P.D.,324 9 P. D., 199 9 P. D., 359 9P.D.,266 Service, No. 18. Fee, No. 4. Division of pension, No. 3. Construction of statutes, No. 1. Division of pension, No. 1. Fee, No. 14; Fee agi'eem.ent,No. 1. Death cause, No. 7. ' Marriage, No. 11. Evidence, No. 10. Notice, No. 2. Restoration, No. 2. Divorce, No. 7. Age, No. 3; Minors, No. 2. Division of pension, No. 11. Service, No. 22. Pathological sequence, No. 14. Marriage, No. 15. Restoration, No. 2. Practice, No. 10. Pathological sequence, No, 8. Marriage, No. 2 (z). Marriage, Nos. 2 (h) and 15. Attorneys, No. 10. Discharge, No. 1. Practice, No. 24. Marriage, No. 2 (v). Marriage, No. 15. Do. Decree of nullity, No. 5. Marriage, No. 13. Attorneys, No. 3. Do. Dependent parents, No. 3. Desertion, No. 4 (g). Disloyalty, No. 1. Divorce, No. 9. Division of pension, No. 15. Guardians, No. 3. Marriage, No. 2 (s). Decree of nullity, No. 8. Minors, No. 2. Pathological sequence, No. 25. Division of pension, No. 13. Disloyalty, No. 1. Marriage, No. 4. Amputation, No. 1 Commencement, No. 1. Declarations, No. 2. Service, No. 5. Service, No. 8, Adulterous cohabitation, No. 1. Legitimacy, No. 1. Death cause. No. 2. Do. 28 PENSIOK AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Spitzer, Gottlieb, alias Brunner... Springston, John L. (attorney) ... Stafford, John L Stetzell, Frances (widow) Stevens, M. B., & Co. (attorneys). Stine, Jasper N Stoker, Mary J. (widow) Salmon, Abbie (widow) Sampson, Charles A Schubert, John (deceased) '... Scott, Reuben F Shinaugh, Calvan. Short, John W Siler, Isabel W. (widow) South, George A Springston, John L. (attorney) ... Stevens, M. B., & Co. (attorneys) . Volume and page. Stives, Nancy A. (widow) Stockwell, Sarah O. (mother) — Storms, Mary J. (widow) Sullivan, Sarah A. (widow) Sullivan, Sarah F., now Morris ... Sandei*s, Emma C, now Stewart . Sanguinette, Ambrose T Schrater, Mary J. (widow) Sebastian, Rachel J. (widow) Shipp, Annie M. (widow) Slagle, Mary C. (widow) Smith, Rose E. (widow) Smith, William Stephens, Edward W Stephens, Russell. Stevens, M. B., & Co. (attorneys). Strickland, Corinne R. (widow) Samuels, F. M., alias Charles Smith Sanford, Sai*ah (widow) Schneider, E. (widow) Scott r. Scott Sherwood, E. (widow) Silman, J. D Smith V. Smith Smith, Edgar G Smith, Robert A Smith, Susan (widow) Snowman, C. W. Sousa, E. (widow) Staples, Charles Starr, Charles L Stevens, Milo B., & Co. (attorneys). Still, James, alias James (minors of) . Stombaugh, C. A. (minor D. T. Hall). Savage, Franklin Sharkey v. Sharkey 9P.D., 83 9P.D.,355 9 P. D., Ill 9P.D., 9 9 P. D., 170, 375 9P.D.,488 9P.D.,5()6 10 P. D., 389 10 P. D., 458 10 P. D., 196 10 P. D., 256 10 P. D., 210 10 P. D., 143 10 P. D., 1 10 P. D., 31 10 P. D., 146 10 P. D., 150, 198, 236, .357, 403,421,428 10 P. D., 9) 10 P. D., 428 10 P. D., 192 10 P. D., 55 10 P. D., 179 11 P. D., 114 11 P. D., 4.51 11 P. D., 501 11 P. D., 144 IIP.D.,226 IIP.D.,260 IIP.D.,443 11 P. b., m 11 P. D., 215 11 P. D., 141 11 P. D., 202, 392, 429,492,-519 11 P. D., 424 12 P. D., 80 12 P. D., 106 12 P. D., 348 12 P. D., 411 12 P. D., 303 12 P. D., 431 12 P. D., 421 12 P. D., 466 12 P. D., 142 12 P. D., 180 12 P. D., 118 12 P. D., 166 12 P. D., 289 12 P. D., 254 12 P. D., 5, 29, 109, 221,239,-525 12 P. D., 25 12 P. D., 1 13 P. D., 107 13 P. D., 297 Chapter of digest and index number. Reduction, No. 2. Fee, No. 8. Fee, No. 6. Helpless minor. No. 2. Attorneys, No. 9: Fee, No. 7. Desertion, No. 5. Marriage, No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Pi-actice, No. 10. Evidence, No. 8. Rate and rating, No. 2. Disloyalty, No. 1 . Attorneys, No. 1. Divorce, No. 1. Rate and rating. No. 6. Fee, No. 10. Attorneys, No. 18; Pee, Nos. 7,8, 9, 25: Limitation, No. 3. Death cause. No. 6. Fee, No. 25. Marriage, No. 9. Desertion No. 3. Marriage, No. 4. Marriage, No. 2 (s). Practice, No. 13. Evidence, No. 10. Marriage, No. 2 (d). Divorce, No. 2. Division of pension. No. 4. MaiTiage, No. 15. Line of duty. No. 7. Fee, No. 15. Service, No. 6. Attorneys, Nos. 7, 11, 14, 17; Fee, No. 17. Special act. No. 1. Desertion, No. 2. Mai'riage, No. 3 (a). Marriage, No. 12. Practice, No. 17. Divorce, No. 6. Line of duty. No. 7. Division of pension. No. 4. Service, No. 16. Line of duty. No. 13. Death cause. No. 10. Pathological sequence. No. 7. Navy pension, No. 3. Reimbursement, No. 3. Practice, No. 18. Attorneys, No. 11; Fee, Nos. 7-11, 18, 19. Minors, No. 1. Guardians, No. 2. Pathological sequence, No. 11. Division of pen,sion, No. 12. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 29 Table of cases reported in volumes to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Sheldon v. Sheldon i Sherman v. Sherman.. Sherry, Hannah (widow) Smith V. Smith Smith, KateD. (widow) Smith, Luther J Snyder, Annie (widow) Spencer, L. C. A. (widow).. Steele, Marg. C. (widow) Stevens, Milo B., «fe Co. (attorneys) Stewart, Eliza A. (widow) Shafer, J. B. (insane). Shanaman. A. K. (widow) Shay, Bridget (mother) Schilling, Mary (widow) Smedley, M. E. (widow) Smith, John W Smith, Mariali (widow) Snyder, Annie (widow) Stevens, John C. Stevens, M. B., & Co. (attorneys) Stolworth, Cora, nee Gee (mother). Strunk r. Button and Strunk Stuart, Fanny (widow). Sullivan, E. (administratrix) Spence, Ann (widow) Sexton, Fieldon Speedy, Jos. (minor of ) Sawyer, L. L. (father) Struck, Dorothy (widow) Shapley, Eunice T. (widow). Stone, "William, alias Semple or Sample... Snell, Solomon Shehan, James E Smith, Sarah E., now Herriman (widow) . Swepston v. Swepston Smith V. Smith Showery, Johanna (widow) Stevens, Milo B., & Co. (attorneys) Shadle, Sarah J. (widow) Spradlin, Eliza A. (widow) Sherard, Nancy E. (widow) Seaver, Nettie N. (widow) Strieker, Michael W. Stevens, Milo B., & Co. (attorneys) Stevens, William H Searles, George E T. Talbert, Jonathan (minor of) . . Taylor, William B Thomas, Margaret L. (widow) Thompson, Sarah C. (widow).. Thi-eet, James Tierney, Michael Volume and page. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. 13 P. D, 27 and 7.5. 13 P. D. ,146 14 P. D. . 89 UP.D. ,5;*) UP.D. ,265 UP.D. ,417 UP.D. , 99 UP.D. ,215 UP.D. ,346 UP.D. ,219 UP.D. ,209 UP.D. ,228 UP.D. ,267 UP.D. , 17 UP.D. ,5()2 UP.D. ,415 1.5 P. D. , 48 15 P. D. ,265 15 P. D. , 79 15 P. D. ,172 15 P. D. ,257 15 P. D. ,127 15 P. D. 116 15 P. D. ,437 15 P. D. ,369 15 P. D. 128 15 P. D. , 82 15 P. D. ,111 15 P. D. . 41 15 P. D. ,273 15 P. D. ,239 15 P. D. , 86 15 P. D. ,478 15 P. D. ,249 15 P. D. 207 15 P. D. 492 15 P. D. ,525 15 P. D. ,550 9P.D. ,226 9P.D. ,.360 9P.D. ,i;« 9P.D. 318 9P.D. ,297 9P.D. , 7 Chapter of digest and index number. Practice, No. 22. Practice, No. 21. Dependent widow, No. 1. Division of pension. No. 4. Service, No. 22. Practice, No. 28. Adulterous cohabitation, No. 5. Divorce, No. 2. Service, No. 35. Attorneys, No. 16; Fee Nos. 17, 21. Marriage, No. 3 (oo). Pathological sequence, No. 18. Marriage, No. 2 (r). Marriage, No. 2 (d). Marriage, No. 2 (t). Divorce, No. 8. Berating, No. 4. Service, No. 24. Adtdterous cohabitation, No. 5. Commencement, No. 13. Attorneys, No. 13. Dependent parents, No. 4. Marriage, No. 1. Desertion, No. 4 (f). Bounty land. No. 4. Adulterous cohabitation. No. 8. Appeals, No. 7. Commencement, No. 1. Dependent parents. No. 9. Dependent widow, No. 1. Dependent widow. No. 4. Desertion, No. 4 (b). Desertion, No. 4 (f). Disloyalty, No. 1. Divorce, No. 5. Division of pension. No. 1. Division of pension. No. 15. Evidence, No. 10. Fee, No. 17. Marriage, No. 2 (1). Marriage, No. 2 (w). Helpless minor. No. 3. Pathological sequence. No. 22. Rate and rating. No. 5. Attorneys, No. 11. Desertion, No. 4 (b). Bate and rating. No. 4. Commencement, No. 1. Service, No. 7. Marriage, No. 3 (a). Dei)endent widow, No. Service, No. 6. Declarations, No. 3. 30 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension devislons, etc. — Continued, Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Trask, Nai)oleon B Trice, Orange (minor of) Trotter, Barbai-a (widow) Tabor & Whitman (attorneys) Taylor, Helen A. M. (widow) Thomas, Archibald F. Thompson, John H., alias Clark Thompson, Warren Toller, William (minors of) Tallmadge, T. W. (attorney) Thornton, Meta (widow) Trout, John R Tunison, Matilda C. (widow) Tuttle, Samuel ( father) Tibbetts, P. E. (widow) Tounaine, F. J. (helpless minor) Truelove, William Tuten, R. E. (widow) Tyler, D.B Taylor, M. B. (widow)... Thomas, Peggy (widow) Tiltonr. Tilton Treacy, Mary J Tripp, A. (widow) Taylor, A., now Robinson (widow) . Taylor, Annie (widow) Taylor, J. (widow) Taylor, William P Thompson, C. A. (widow) Thompson, J. (widow). Thorn, Graham.. Tripp, Annie L. (widow) Thornton, Meta Q. (widow) Taylor v. Taylor Turner v. Turner Taylor, Ellen C. (mother) Terrell, Francis A. (widow) Trickle, Agnes (widow) U. Ulman, Karolin (widow) V. Varco, Isabella (widow) Veley, James T Vermilyea, J. H., & Co. (attorneys) Vinal, J. F. (attorney) Vining, Rebecca C. (widow) Vaughn, Mary J. ( widow) Veale, Alonzo C Vogler, Mary J. (widow) Van Houten v. Van Houten Veach, William H Viles, Mahla (widow) Van Antwei*p, S. E i. Van Trees, H. E 16 P 9 P. D., 113 9 P. D., 393 9 P. D., 254 10P.D.,46() 10 P. D., 188 10 P. D., 374 10 P. D., 33 10 P. D.. 276 10 P. D., 7.5 11 P. D.,;^ 11 P. D., 21 11 P. D., 435 IIP.D.,440 IIP.D.,278 12 P. D., 443 12 P. D.. 527 13 P. D., 45 12 P. D., m 12P.D.,3&5 13 P. D., 181 13 P. D., 98 13 P. D., 363 13 P. D., 416 13 P. D., 157 14 P. D., 476 14 P. D., 71 14 P. D., 360 14 P. D., 276 14 P. D, 436 14 P. D., 469 14 P. D., 249 14 P. D., 242 D.,3K,351,561 15 P. D., 90 15 P. D., 132 15 P. D., 315 15 P. D., 225 15 P. D., 50 15 P. D., 30:^ 9P.D.,1, 9P.D., 9P.D., 9P.D., 9P.D., 10 P. D., 11 P. D., IIP.D., 12 P. D., 12 P. D.. 12P.D., 13 P. D. 13 P. D., 320 15 213 19 362 284 299 271 157 273 468 444 428 Death cause, No. 2. Accrued pensions. No. 3. Dependent widow, No. 1. Attorneys, No. 8. Service, No. 17. Appeals, No. 3. Identity, No. 1. Disability, No. 2. Marriage, No. 15. Practice, No. 14. Service, No. 4. Service, No. 22. Death cause, No. 5. Legitimacy, No. 2. Pathological sequence, No. 3. Helpless minor, No. 3. Disloyalty, No. 6. Minoi-s, No. 4. Service, No. 10. Accrued pension, No. 8. Marriage, No. 2 (p). Division of pension, No. 14. Jurisdiction, No. 5. Marriage, No. 2 (bb). Marriage, No. 2 (v). Service, No. 24. Dependent widow. No. 4. Fee, No. 23. Marriage, No. 15. Estoppel, No. 3. Service, No. 20. Adulterous cohabitation. No. 6. Bounty land. No. 5. Division of pension. No. 4. Division of pension. No. 10. Line of duty. No. 19. Marriage, No. 2 (ee). Service, No. 3. Death cause, No. 2. Dependent widow, No. 1. Service, No. 13. Attorneys, No. 9. Attorneys, No. 5. Do. Decree of nullity. No. 2. Berating, No. 5. Decree of nullity. No. 3. Practice, No. 17. Service, No. 8. Marriage, No. 2 rkk). Attorneys, No. 9. Fraud and mistake. No. 4. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 31 Table of vases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Vogler, John Vallean, E., now Goshorn (widow) . Veirs, John, alias "William Dow dell. Voglei* v. Vogler "Wangelin, EmmaC. - Warren, George W..- Waters, Catharine (widow) Watson, William B... Weyant, William B. (minoi*8 of) — Whalen, Anna M. (widow) Wheaton, Charles C Wheeler, Bessie C. (widow) Williams, Elizabeth M. (widow) Williams, Henry C - Wilson, David. Winkler, Zachariah ,... Winters, Martineau (widow) Wood, Leroy F Wykoff, George E Walther, Peter Watkins, Julia A. E. (widow) Weeks, Samuel B Wiley, Rebecca (widow) Williams, John S Williams, Seaborn .^ Williams, Susan (widow) Wilson, Samuel Wilson, William Wood, Elizabeth W Wagner, Martin Walker, Drucilla (widow) Weeden, E. S. (attorney).. Wilds, William W Will, Louis J Williams, Alfred Williamson, Elizabeth (widow) Wilson, Joseph B Wilson, Minna (widow) Winfrey, Archie C Winkler, Anna M.. , Wood, Mary M. A. (widow) Woodin, Jerome, alias Frank Allen Wagner, C. (alleged widow) Warner, R. (widow)... Washington, M. E. (widow) Watson, John T Webster, Thomas Wheeler, Henry White, F,, alias William Johnson.. Wilson, E. B. (widow) Wade, JamesJ Wallace, M., now Nichols (widow) Whiteherse, Samuel , 13 P. D. 3:^1 14 P. D. 411 14 P. D. 552 14 P. D. 385 9P.D. 76 9P.D. 392 9P.D. 206 9 P. D., 182 395 9P.D. 276 9P.D. 346 9P.D. 156 9P.D. 155 9P.D. 117 9P.D. 39 9P.D. 404 9P.D. 172 9P.D. 108 9P.D. 64 9P.D. 52 10 P. D. 125 10 P. D. 202 10 P. D. 84 10 P. D. 304 10 P. D. 169 10 P. D. 292 10 P. D. 82 10 P. D. 412 10 P. D. 232 10 P. D. 26 11 P. D. ,455 11 P. D. ,488 11 P. D. ,422 11 P. D. , 95 11 P. D. ,179 11 P. D. ,163 11 P. D. ,406 11 P. D. ,308 11 P. D. ,339 11 P. D. , 38 11 P. D. ,241 11 P. D. ,158 11 P. D. , 13 12 P. D. ,134 12 P. D. ,266 12 P. D. ,228 12 P. D. , 92 12 P. D. ,441 12 P. D. ,477 12 P. D. , 49 12 P. D. ,481 13 P. D. ,128 13 P. D. ,286 13 P. D. , 41 Che,pter of digest and index number. Commencement, No. 12. Restoration, No. 2. Desertion, No. 4 (c). Division of pension, No. 13. Dependent widow, No. 1. Evidence, No. 4. Service, No. 3. Service, No. 11. Accrued pensions. No. 1. Service, No. 7. Disability, No. 3. Desertion, No. 2. Fee, No. 5. Fee, No. 2. Rate and rating. No. 2. Powell's battalion. No. 1. Service, No 4. Practice, No. 5. Line of duty. No. 8. Disloyalty, No. 2. Death cause. No. 5. Reimbursement, No. 1. Marriage, No. 2 (r). Service, No. 7. Declarations, No. 4. Discharge, No. 3. Fee, No. 11. Increase, No. 8. Service, No. 3. Practice, No. 15. Marriage, No. 10, Attorneys, No. 18. Practice, No. 6. Age, No. 1; Disability, No. 4. Service, No. 4. Divorce, No. 2. Fraud and mistake, No. 2. Marriage, No. 2 (p). Disability, No. 6. Accrued pensions. No. 5. Marriage, No. 3 (c). Desertion, No. 2; Practice. No. 12. Marriage, No. 4. Dependent widow, No. 4. Identity, No. 2. Increase, No. 3. Fee, No. 7. Disability, No. 9. Commencement, No. 12. Marriage, No. 2 (k). Disloyalty, No. 8. Restoi-ation, No. 2. Service, No. 20. 32 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases reported in volumes 9 to 15, pension decisions, etc. — Continued. Name. Volume and page. Chapter of digest and index number. Whitney v. Whitney Woehl, S. J. E. (widow) Walker, Isaac. Ward well v. Ward well Washburn v. Washburn Weems, J. P. L. (attorney) Wehr, Solomon P.. Wheeler, George W Whelan, Bridget White V. White. White, Maria (widow) Whitehurst, Oliver S Wilde, A. F. (widow) Williams v. Williams Willie V. Wilson, alias Willie Winfleld, Isabella (widow) Wormsted, William H White, Thomas H Whiteleather, Carrie B. (mother) Wiley, M. W. (as widow) Wheeler, Julia A. (widow) Whittle, H.B... Welsh, Martin Wilbur, Louise (widow) Woodard, Mary A , Wright V. Wright , Witz, M. E. A. (widow) Wood, Andrew H Washington, Rosetta (widow) Walker, Isaac Williams, William Williams, Mary E. (widow) Y. Yancey, Christopher C Young, Elizabeth (widow) Young, Jacob - Young, Laura A Yates, Lizzie (widow) Yates V. Yates Yerwood, N. (father) 13 P. D., 301 Division of pension, No. 16. 13 P. D., 1355 Restoration, No. 2. 14 P. D., 256 Fee, No. 24. 14P.D.,334 Division of pension. No. 15. 14 P. D., 127 Do. 14 P. D., 199 Fee, No. 22. 14 P. D., 515 Service, No. 26. 14 P. D., 542 Pathological sequence, No. 16 14P.D.,;380 Desertion, No. 4 (b). 14 P. D., 313 Division of pension. No. 15. 14 P. D., 21 Marriage, No. 4. 14P.D.,45() Medical examination, No. 2. 14 P. D., 506 Line of duty, No. 8. 14 P. D., 1 Division of pension. No. 19. 14 P. D., 43 Marriage, No. 1. 14 P. D., 128, 194 Restoration, No. 2. 14 P. D., 182 Disability, No. 10. . 15 P. D., 147 Bounty land. No. 3. 15 P. D., 58 Death cause. No. 15. 15 P. D., 286 Decree of nullity, No. 7. 15 P. D.,:^ Dependent widow, No. 1. 15 P. D., 337 Disloyalty, No. 11. 15 P. D., 318 Fee, No. 26. 15 P. D., 270 Insane person. No. 2. 15 P. D., 253 Marriage, No. 2 Ce). 15 P. D., 236 Marriage, No. 2 (u). 15 P. D., 208 MaiTiage, No. 2 (bb). 15 P. D., 333 Berating, No. 6. 15 P. D., 446 Restoration, No. 2. 15 P. D., 198 Service, No. 24. 15 P. D., 281 Do. 15 P. D., 543 Marriage, No. 2 (hh). 9 P. D., 185 Evidence, No. 5. 9P.D., 44 Service, No. 4. 9 P. D., 147 Fee, No. 1. 9 P. D., 403 Rate and rating, No. 1. 10 P. D., 446 Marriage, No. 1. 12 P. D., 225 Practice, No. 17. 13 P. D., 140 Marriage, No. 15. PENSION DECISIONS— VOLUME 9. TABLE OF CASES CITED. A. Page. Abbott, William H. (22 Fee r. L. Bk.. 75) 403 Ackenback, George (7 P. D., 169) __ 29,45 Adams, James S., Lucy Adams, widow of (8 P. D., 93) 13 Adler, S. E. (5 P. D., 229) 472,474 Aiken, Richmond v. (25 Vt., 324)__ 34 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law (vol 2, p. 654) 36 Ames. Joel (8 P. D., 171) 21 Ammerman, William M. (3 P. D., 1) 275 Amos, George W. (8 P. D., 271)— 359 Anderson, ex parte (16 Iowa, 595 )_ 491 Anderson, Margaret J. (4 P. D., 67)- 499 Anderson, United States v. (9 Wall., 56) 207 Angel, Mylon (8 P. D., 35) 378 Angel V. People (96 111., 209) 36,252 Arendes, Margaretha (8 P. D., 425) 468 Attorney-General (7 Op., 149) 233 Attorney-General (15 Op., 157)-_ 388,443 Attorney-General (17 Op., 339) 58 Attorney-General (21 Op., 169) 58 B. Babb, Isaac N., alias John Dunlap (8 P. D., 59) 156,257,366 Babcock, Robins E. (7 P. D., 285) __ 375 Bailey, David J. (7 P. D., 173) 206 Bainbridge, J. Story, in U. S. v. (1 Mason, 81) 490 Ball, T. W. (41 Cal., 29) 469 Barleyoung, John (7 P. D., 453)_ 119,126 Barlow, Henry (9 P. D., 347) 468 Barnes, James (2 P. D., o. s., 442) _ 257 Barnes, James M. (8 P. D., 94) __ 303,468 Bassett, Anne E. (8 P. D., 321) 385 Beatrice, Schmisseur v. (147 111., 210) 34,251 Bennett, Chas. T. (7 P. D., 1)_^_— 414 Bennett, Thomas S. (2 P. D., 9)___ 13 Bernstein, Adolph (7 P. D., 229)— 24, 260, 283, 366 Besser, .Tohn P. (7 P. D., 146) 260 Beswick (25 How. Pr., 151) 490 Bierbaum. Caroline, widow of Ern- est (4 P. D.. 172) 115,268 Page. Bishop, Harriet S. (4 P. D., 354)— 495 Blanchard v. Lambert et al. (43 Iowa, 229) 248 Blew, Maria (8 P. D., 490) 43 Bollman v. Swartwout (4 Cranch, 126) 367 Bone, Wallace G. (2 P. D., 310) 85 Boston, etc., R. Co., Elkins v. (115 Mass., 190) 14 Bostwick, State v. (4 H. Del., 563) _ 36 Bowersmith, Jacob (3 P. D., 303) _ 257, 386 Brady, Mary (9 P. D., 305) 468 Branch v. Bowman (2 Leigh., 170) _ 7 Brandt, Hiram H. G. (5 P. D., 282) _ 168 Brewer, Timberlake v. (59 Ala., 108) •- 368 Briggs, Davie v. (97 U. S., 628) 243 Brockenshaw, William H. (3 P. D., 11) 275 Brockman, George E. (IP. D., 453; 2 P. D., 239) 108,173 Bronoel, Mary E., minor. (8 P. D., 387) 191 Brookman, George H. (7 P. D., 260) _ 178 Brown, George A. (8 P. D., 309)_-- 400 Brown v. 'United States (113 U. S., 568) 470 Brunz, Anton (8 P. D., 344) 108 Brush, James IT., alias Jesse L. Judd (7 P. D., o. s., 73) 258,386 Buckner, 111. Central R. I . Co. v. (28 111., 299) 14 B, and Mo. Riv. R. R., United States r. (98 U. S., 334-341) 470 Burton, Jeannette (9 P. D., 31) 246 Burton, Spears v. (21 Miss., 546)— 36 Bush, Aaron T. (8 P. D., 254) 294 Bush, Reed v. (5 Bim., 455) 460 Bush, Sarah (9 P. D., 144) 257,468 Butler, Jeremiah (7 P. D., 214) 208 C. Capella, Anastatic (8 P. D., 308)— 283, 294, 366 Carey, Stephen H. (6 P. D., 42) 144 Carley. Timothy L. (7 P. D., 12)_-- 191 Carpenter, Neitz v. (21 Cal., 456)_ 34,248 13070— OG- 33 34 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Carroll v. Carroll (20 Texas, 731)— 247 Carter, Eliza W. (5 P. D., 148) 499 Castalor, Clark J., Phebe, widow of (2 P. D., 32) - 13 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Feller (84 Pa. St., 226) 14 Chapman, in re (2 Law Rep. Annd., 352; 37 Fed. Rep., 327) 491 Chryst, Mary (8 P. D., 242) 150 City of Centralia v. Krouze (64 111., 19) 14 Clark, R. H. (8 P. D., 202) 339 Clark, Rose v (8 Paige Ch. Rep., 573) 248 Claw, Jackson v. (18 Johnson, 347) 248 Clear, Jackson v. (18 Johns, N. Y., 346) 37 Cleveland, Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Terry (8 Ohio St., 570) 14 Cline, William (7 P. D., 119) 310,402 Coburn, William T. (7 P. D., 182) 257,388 Cockburn, Van Buren v. (14 Barb., N. Y., 122) 34,248 Coflfey, George W. (4 P. D., 285) ___ 282 Coleman, James S. (Digest of 1885, 422) 84,87 Colgin, Susan (5 P. D., 127) 145,386 Collector, Hadden v. (5 Wall., 112) 467 Commissioner of Pensions, Long v. (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 431 Com. V. French (Thatcher, Mass. 163) 30 Com. V. Gamble (11 Serg. & R., 93 )_ 491 Com. V. Green (2 Pick., Mass., 380) _ 36 Commonwealth v. Marshall (62 Pa. St., 328) 467 Com. i". Mead (10 Allen, Mass., 398) 36 Com., Willett V. (13 Bush., Ky., 230) 36 Coney, John G. (3 P. D., 200) 239 Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., Tlsdale V. (26 Iowa, 170) 245 Conroy, Jane (2 P. D., o. s., 477) __ 387 Cosenow, in re (37 Fed. Rep., 661 )_ 491 Couch, William C. (8 P. D., 39) 294 Cowen, Franklin S. (7 P. D., 374) __ 144 Cox, Mary A. (3 P. D., 313) 115, 116, 267, 493, 496 Craiglow, Martin J. (7 P. D., 517). 20 Crider, Melinda L. (7 P. D., 462) __ 246 Cullen, James (6 P. D., 72) 144, 156, 386, 408 Curran, John W. (5 P. D., 1) 71 Curtis, Fanny (2 P. D., 159) 499 Cushman, Henry (7 P. D., 408) ___ 23,468 D. Daly, Thomas (2 P. D., 220) 508 Darby, Edward's Lessee v. (12 Wheaton, 207) 470 Davenport v. Ruckman (10 Bos- worth, N. Y., 20; 37 N. Y., 568) _ 14 Davie v. Briggs (97 U. S., 628) 243 Davinney, Henry (7 P. D., 233) __ 257,382 Davis, Evaline, widow (9 P. D., 2)_ 322 Da-is, Henry L. (3 P. D., o. s., 56) _ 368 Page. Davis, Lawrence H. (8 P. D., 406) _ 403 Davis, Norman (8 P. D., 288) 150 Davison, in re (21 Fed. Rep., 618) _ 491 Dean, John (4 P. D., 392) 275 Deddrick v. Wood (15 Pa. St., 9) __ 467 De Tar, Theodore (4 P. D., 130) ___ 168 Dickenson, Charlotte M. (6 L. B. P., 318) 154 Dickerson, Phillips v. (85 111., 11) _ 14 Doan, Louisa J. (8 P. D., 377) 500 Dorlas, Nancy J. (5 P. D., 230) 499 Douglass, John (14 P. D., o. s., 385)- 4S Douglas V. Pike (101 U. S., 677) ___ 470 Downard, Ida M. (7 P. D., 290) ___ 81 Downey, Robertson v. (127 U. S., 607) 470 Dulaney, Ward v. (23 Miss., 410) _ 34,248 Durkee, James J. (8 P. D., 152) 41,43 Duval, James (9 P. D., 218) 414 E. Eastridge, Mary E. (8 P. D., 5) ___ 63, 218 Edgell, Elizabeth (5 P. D., 96) 496 Edward's Lessee r. Darby (12 Wheat, 207) 470 Ehler, Keiflfer v. (18 Pa. St., 388) __ 469 Eibel, Kate (7 P. D., 179) 386 Elkins V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (115 Mass., 190) 14 Ellis V. Ellis (58 Iowa, 720) 248 Emory, United States v. (112 U. S. Rep., 510) 409 Evans, Cynthia (5 P. D., 188) 63,330 F. Fagin, Ann (9 P. D., 62) 332 Fain, Eliza (7 P. D., 572) 328 Falkenburg, Dewitt C. (3 P. D., 336) 488 Farrell, Edward et al. (7 P. D., 532) __^__ 120,126,207 Felber, Elizabeth (4 P. D., 329) 81 Feller, Central, etc., R. Co. (84 Pa. St., 226) 14 Fenton v. Reed (4 Johnson, 51) 248 Ferrie v. Pub. Adm. (4 Barb. N. Y., 28) 34, 248 Few, Annie E. (8 P. D., 95) 303,468 Fisher, United States v. (2 Cranch, 358) 467 Fleck, George W. (7 P. D., 343) ___ 124, 163, 468 Fleming v. People (27 N. Y., 329 )_ 34,248 Flynn, Ellen, widow (8 P. D., 54) __ 442 Frank, Francis (9 P. D., 68) 217 Freeman, United States v. (3 How- ard, 565) 260, 283 French, B. J. (7 P. D., 54) 44 French, Com. v. (Thatcher, Mass., 163) 36 Fullbright, Miles F. (9 P. D., 146) _ 366 G. Gaines v. New Orleans (6 Wall., 642) 36 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 35 Page. Gaines, Patterson v. (6 How., 550) 34; 86, 248 Gamble, Com. v. (11 Serg. & R., 93)- 491 Gannon, Elizabeth A. (3 P. D., 67) - 257,388 Gardiner, llallowell r. (1 Me., 93) _ 469 Garrison, Daniel B. (6 P. D., 289) _ 282 George v. Taylor (55 Tex., 97) 150 Gibson v. State (38 Miss., 322) 36 Gierhart, Emma (6 P. D., 155) 81 Gilbert, George W. (9 I'. D., 279) __ 366 Gillespie, Alexander (2 P. D., 16)-- 276 Gilmore, United States v. (8 Wall., 330) 470 Gilpin V. Page (18 Wall., 364) 34,248 Goller, Salem v. (76 Ind., 291) 14 Gonzales v. N. Y. etc., R. Co. (1 Jones & S., N. Y., 57) 14 Good, George W., minor of (8 P. I)., 407) 191 Gorby, Sarah (4 P. I)., 298) 243 Grace v. Wilber (12 Johns, 68) 492 Graham, United States v. (110 U. S., 219-221) 470 Gray, Alice (7 I'. D., 134) 330 Greathouse, United States v. (4 Sawyer, 472) 367 Green, Com. v. (2 I'iclc. Mass., 380) _ 36 Green, John S. (16 Fee, P. L. Bk., 349) 148 Greenleaf on Evidence (paragraph 42) 243 Griswold, widow and minors of (3 P. D., o. s., 492) 81 Grofif, "Diana B. (8 P. D., 91) 435,496 Grooms, Sarah J. (7 P. D., 207)—- 63,330 Groppe, Henry (8 P. D., 293) 152 Guild, State v. (5 Halst. N. Y., 192)- 36 . H. Hadden v. Collector (5 Wall., 112)- 467 Hall, United States v. (98 U. S., 343) 59,81 llallowell V. Gardner (1 Me., 93) „ 469 Hantz V. Sealy (6 Binn., 405) 498 Harris v. Harris (8 HI. App., 57) _ .34,252 Harris v. Ubelhoer (75 N. Y., 169)- 14 Harrison, James E. (7 P. D., 97)— 53, 236, 433 Harrison v. United States (20 C. Cls. Rep., 122) 219,414,431 Haslan, Morris, etc., R. Co. v. (33 N. J. L., 147) 14 llayden, Sarah S. (8 P. D., 364) ___ 498 Hayes v. Michigan Central Railroad (111 U. S., 241) 494 Hayford, Ira W. (9 P. D., 307) 352 Haynie, Henry N. (9 P. D., 304) _ 361,468 Helmer, Henry A. (2 P. D., 385; 3 P. D., Ill; 7 P. D., .376; L. B., 286, p. 11) 1.30.434 Heron, Michael, widow of (8 P. D., o. s., 294) 194 Hicks, James L. (8 P. D., 518) 72 Hii:, George W. (7 P. D., 235)— 290, 303 Page. Hill, United States v. (120 U. S., 169) 470 Hilton, George D. (8 P. D., 182) — 136, 357 Hoflfman, Marg-aret (9 P. D., 227) 434 Holcomb, Mahlon D. (19 Fee P. L. Bk., 244) 376 Hollywood, Julia B. (8 P. D., 106)— 45 Hoppel, Phillip (5 P. D., o. s., 151)- 368 Houser, Sarah J. (6 P. D., 281) 63 Houston V. Moore (5 Wheat., 1) 423 Houston, Yates r. (3 Texas, 433) _— 247 Howard, Lafayette G., minor child of (8 P. D., 230) 152 Hoy, James, widow of (2 P. D., o. s., 210) 495 Hudson, O'Mara v., etc., R. Co. (38 N. Y., 445) 14 Hughes, Tanner r. (53 Pa., 289)— 34 Hull r. Rawles (27 Miss., 471) 36 Hulse, William L. (8 P. D., 349)— 48 Hunt's Appeal (86 Pa., 294-296) _ 498,499 Hutchins v. Kimmell (31 Mich., 126) 140 I. 111. Central R. R. Co. v. Buckner (28 111., 299) 14 Insurance Company v. Tweed (7 Wall., 52) 494 J. Jackson v. Claw (18 Johns, 347)— 248 Jackson v. Clear (18 Johns, N. Y., 346) 37 .Tohn, Phillip (8 P. D., 64) 24 Johns. William B. (2 P. D., 393)— _ 413 Jones V. .Tones (48 Md., 397) 37 Johnston, United States v. (124 U. S., 236) 470 Johnson, Emma E. (7 P. D., 415)— 496 Johnson r. Johnson (114 111., 611)- 34, 252 K. Kaufman, Daniel B. (1 P. D., 383; 3 P. D., 137) 385,387 KeifiEer r. Ehler (18 Pa. St., 388)— 469 Kelley, Bridget (7 P. D., 128)— _ 256,386 Kelley, John G. (8 I\ D., o. s., 229)- 256 Kellogg, Milwaukee Railway Com- pany V. (94 U. S., 474) 494 Kelly, Mary (8 P. D., 382) 194 Kelly, Michael (3 P. D., 240) 168 Kendall, Frances (8 P. D., 197) 1, 169,328,332 Kenney, Peter (7 P. D., 588) 257,388 Kerner, Frederick W. (7 P. D., 305)- 496 Kersey, Sarah A., widow (6 P. D., 1)_ 16, 24 Kilburn, Newell, Williams, Mary J., V. (88 Mich.. 279) 140 Kilmarnock, Milo t'. (11 Me., 455)-- 469 Kimmell, Hutchins v. (31 Mich., 126) 140 Kinney, .T. F. <4 P. D., 132) 81 Klein, Katharine (7 P. D., 278) 77, 255, 503 Knappenborger. Caroline (3 P. D., 263) 63 36 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Koler, Albert and George (5 P. D., 99) 81 Krouze, City of Centralia r. (64 111., 19) 14 L. Landgraf, Susan (7 1'. 1)., 380)__ 255,319 Larimer, Susan (3 I*. D., 235) 03 Laughlin, John M. (8 I*. D., 52)__ 11,354 Leonard, E. S. (9 P. D., 194) ______ 4(>8 Lessor, George (8 P. D., 114) 156, 255, 383, 489 Lewis, Jennie D. (6 P. !)., 294) 76,255 Lewis, Mary E., widow of George W. (2 V. D.. 334) 495 Lingers, Sophia (4 V. I)., 287) 63 Lee, William G. (G P. I)., 149) 178 Locke, James (7 P. I)., 532) 409 Lockhart r. White (18 Texas, 102) _ 36, 247 Loeb, Jacob, minor of (7 1'. D., 167) _ 190 Lohr, Elizabeth, widow (13 Fee P. L. Bk., 144) 118 Long, V. Commissioner of Pensions (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 431 Longee, Augustus II. (7 P. D., 586) 147, 283, 294 Love, Oscar (26 Fee I'. L. Bk., 419)_ 339 Loveitt, Clarence (7 1'. I)., 405) 453 Lowell, Winn r. (1 Allen, Mass., 177) 14 Lyons, Ellen (6 P. D., 151) 41,43 Lyon, Eudora H., widow (7 P. D., 215) 46 M. McAleer r. McMurray (58 Pa.. 126) _ 34 McAlpine, Daniel (2 P. D., o. s., 390) 256 McElrath r. United States (102 U. S., 438) 207 McCluney, Elizabeth (1 P. I)., o. s., 84) 154 McCollum, Michael A., t^lizabeth, widow of (6 P. I>., 93) . 142 McConologue (107 Mass., 170) 491 McCullum, Abram (6 P. D., o. s., Ill) 167 McCullum, Mary B. (6 P. D., 931) __ 499 McDonald, John W. (5 P. D., o. s., 104) 368 McManus, Mary A. (4 P. D., 346) __ 276 Mackey, Francis — Susannah, widow of (8 P. D., 535) 304,347,361 Mallon, Thomas (8 P. D., 208) 289 Maloy r. Wabash, etc., R. Co. (84 Mo.. 270) 14 Maness, Rebecca (7 P. D., 110) 496 Manley, Randolph M. (5 P. D., 295) _ 464 Marshall, Albert (5 P. D., 226) 168 Marshall, Commonwealth r. (62 Pa. St., 328) 467 Martin, Alexander (4 P. D.. 378) ___ 126 Martin, Jackson (7 P. D.. 265) 63.219 Martin, .Tohn (7 P. D.. 578) ___ 93, 95, 2,'>2 May, Christian (8 P. D., 71) 150.462 Mead. Com. r. (10 Allen. Mass.. 398) 36 Meike, Henry H. (6 P. D., 192) 168 Meister v. Moore (96 U. S., 76) 82 Messmer and Morrison (6 I', 1)., 20) _ Michigan Central Railroad. Ilayes r. (Ill U. S.. 241) Miller. Christian (4 1'. I)., 351) Miller, Francis O. (2 P. D.. 214) Miller, James W. (8 I\ D., 316) __ 2; Miller. Ruth L. (2 P. D., 214) Milo r. Kilmarnock (11 Me.. 455) __ Milwaukee Railway Company v. Kel- logg (94 r. S., 474) ^ Miner. Lydia A. (8 P. D., 104 Minor. Susan M. (8 I*. D.. 263) Mizner. Sarah (7 P. D., 62) Moore. Edward W. (8 I*. I)., 400) __ Moore. Houston r. (5 Wheat.. 1) Moore. Meister r. (96 U. S., 76) Moore, William II. (26 Fee P. L. Bk.. 455) Morris, Ellie (9 P. D.. 353) Morris, etc., R. Co. r. Haslan (33 N. J. L.. 147) Morrison and Messmer (6 1*. D., 20) _ M. Page. 24 494 310 440 ►7, 386 495 469 494 339 41,43 118 56 423 171 454 Morrison, Whitaker r. (Fla.. 29)__ .34,248 Morse, Thankful (1 P. D., 56) 499 Murray, Thomas (2 L. B. P., 88)-__ 154 Murray, Valerie S. (8 1'. D., 247) __ 364 Muse, R. W. P. (2 P. D., 180) 44,45 X. Neitz r. Carpenter (21 Cal.. 456) _ 34,248 New Orleans, Gaines v. (6 Wall., 642) 36 Newman, Henry (8 P. D., 532) __ 236,435 Newton v. Southron (7 N. Y., 130) _ 37 Nichols, Charles A. (4. 1'. D., 213 )_ 54 Niedhammer, Alma, widow (8 P. D., 276) 115,268,360 N. J., etc.. Trans. Co., West r. (32 N. J. L., 91) 14 Norris, Louisa S. (5 1'. D., 42) 24 North, United States v. (112 U. S. Rep., 510) 409 Norton, John (9 P. D., 382) _ 417,442,489 N. Y., etc., R. Co., Gonzales r. (1 Jones & S., N. Y., 57) 14 O. Oiler, Jacob (7 P. D., 309) 400 Oliver, David (7 I'. D., 597) 23, 98, 99, 182, 361, 396 O'Mara v. Hudson, etc., R. Co. (38 N. Y., 445) 14 O'Neill, Margaret, widow (8 P. D., 333) 169 Ousterhout, Milo (7 P. D.. 270) ___ 283 Ozborn, Sarah H. (7 P. D., 317)__ 24, 147, 260, 283, 294, 366 Page. Gilpin r. (18 Wall., 364)_-_ .34,248 Palmer, Ellen A. (7 P. D., .363) 1.39, 141, 499 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 37 Page. Parker. William II. (8 P. D.. 198) _ 260 Patterson r. Gaines ((J How., 500>_ 84, 8(5, 248 I'atterson, Obed A. (8 1'. I)., 4r»2)_ 839 Payne, Matilda (5 P. D., 161) 63 Payne. Wilkinson v. (4 Durn and East's Rep., 468) 248 Peach r. Utica (10 Iliin., N. Y.. 477) 14 Pearson. Ellen (5 P. D.. 258) 124 Peck, Starr r. (1 Hili, 270) 248 Peet r. Peet (52 Mich., 464)___^_ 140,141 Pendleton. .Tohn (5 P. D., 217) 81 Pennington r. Yell (11 Ark., 212) _ 34 People. Ansel v. (96 III., 209) 36, 252 People, Fleming v. (27 N. Y., 329) _ 34. 248 Petersdorf, Henrietta (4 P. D., 96) _ 495 Peterson, Bowman H. (8 P. D.. 56) _ 276 Philbrick r. I'nited States (120 F. S., 52-.59) 470 Philips r. State (15 Ga., 518) 469 Philips, Isaac N. (8 P. I>., 377) 468 Phillips r. Dickerson (85 111., 11) __ 14 Pierce. Oliver P. (7 P. D., 91) 42 Pike, Douglas r. (101 U. S., 677) __ 470 Pipes, Ellen .T. (7 P. I).. 489) 24, 63, 333, .866 Poland, Elizabeth II., widow (8 P. D., 266) 16,87,163 Potter, .Joseph M. (3 P. D., 82) 132 Powell r. Powell (27 Miss., 783)__ .84,248 Pratt, Louisa II. (5 I». D., 98) 63 Prince, .Tacob (7 P. D., o. s., 121 )_ 1.85 Pub. Adm., Ferrie r. (4 Barb., N. Y., 28) 84,248 Purl V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (72 Mo., 168) 14 Quigg, .Tames (8 P. D., 248) 65 Quinn, Anne (2 P. D., 356) 44 R. Ransom, Albert K. (5 P. D., 183)_ 16,162 Rawles, Hull r. (27 Miss., 471) 36 Reed r. Bush (5 Bim., 455) 469 Reed, Fenton v. (4 .Tohns, 51) 248 Reynolds, John W. (1 P. D., o. s., 223) 468 Rhodes, Marcls M. (8 P. D., 99)___ 24 Rice on Evidence (pp. 764 and 1223) 243 Rice, Mary .T. (7 P. D., 569) 123 Richmond r. Aiken (25 Vt., 324) __ 34 Ridgway, Basil T. (9 P. D., 300)__ 468 Rieckoif, Ernst, minor of (8 P. D., 824) 191 Riley (1 Benedict, 410) 490 Rinkel, .Tacob (8 P. D., 30) 69 Ripon, Stewart v. (38 Wis., 584) __ 14 Robertson r. Downey (127 U. S., 607) 470 Rogers, William F (9 P. D., 96)_-- 396 Page. Rose V. Clark (8 Paige Ch. Rep., 573) 1 248 Rosse, Irving C. (6 P. D., 68) 23 S. Salem v. Goller (76 Ind., 291) " 14 Sandown. Sluper r. (52 Vt., 251) __ 14 Sarver, Barnabus (9 P. D., 294) 866 Schaffer, Louis (6 P. D., 187) 98, 99, 182. .896 Schmidlin, Elizabeth (5 P. D., 200) _ 499 Schmidlin, .Toseph, Mary B., widow of (6 P. D., 200) 142 Schmisseur r. Beatrice (147 111., 210) 84.251 Schoepf, .Tohn (7 P. I)., 19) .858 Scott. William W. (7 P. D., 417)___ 205 Sealey, Hantz r. (6 Binn., 405) 498 Server, Ann E. (7 P. D., 468) 499 Seymour, Emma IT. (8 P. D., 825) _ 288, 294 Shank. Eliza (8 P. D., 486) .865 Shannon, Andrew .T. (7 P. D., 64 )_ 28, 803, .861, 468 Shapley v. Wyman (134 Mass., 118) 14 Sharpe, Marie (8 P. D., 175) 243 Shattuck. ,T. (7 I». D., 169) 44 Sheets, Amy 1*. (3 P. D.. 298) 499 Sickles, Caroline A. (6 P. D., 164 )_ 243 Silvey, William, widow of (4 P. D., o. s., 174) . 194 Simmerman v. H. & St. .T. R. Co. (71 Mo., 476 ; 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas., 191) 14 Simpson, Darwin C. (8 P. D., 311 )_ 138 Sluper r. Sandown (52 Vt., 251)— 14 Smith. .Tames G. (8 P. D., 172) 126 Smith, Nanna .T. (9 P. D.. 8.59) 496 Snyder, Israel (8 P. D., 265) 43 Soper, Alfred S. (No. 23569, Letter Bk., 206, p. 81) 412 Soper, Briggs (8 P. D., .894) 152 Southron, Newton v. (7 N. Y., 130) _ 37 Spears v. Burton (21 Miss., .546) __ .86 Spraggler, Adolph (8 P. D., 51) 9 Stack, Sarah A., mothei< of .Tohn G. (2 1\ D., 158) ^ 441,495 Stage's Case (5 C. II. R. N. Y., 120)_ 36 Stakes, George H. (4 P. D., 158) __ 135 Stapleton, Thomas (8 P. D., 48)___ 260 Starr v. Peck (1 Hill, 270)____ 248 State V. Bostwick (4 H. Del., 563) _ 36 State, Gibson v. (38 Miss., 322) 86 State V. Guild (5 Halst., N. Y., 192) .86 State, Philips v. (15 Ga., 518) 469 Stetzell, Frances (9 P. D., 9) 8.54,4,54 Stevens, M. B., & Co. (5 P. D., 254 )_ 478 Stewart v. Ripon (88 Wis., .584)___ 14 St. Louis, Purl v., etc., R. Co. (72 Mo., 168) 14 Stone, Charles (8 P. D., 477) 107 Story, J., in U. S. v. Bainbridge (1 Mason, 81) 490 Strange, Thomas H. (7 P. D., 36)— 216 38 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Sutherland on Statutory Construc- tion (sees. 309, 333) 277 Sutton, Alexander, minor 'sisters of (8 P. D., 137) 161,505 Swartwout, Bollman v. (4 Cranch, 126) 367 T. Tallman, Evelyn S. (6 P. D., 261, reaffirmed in Letter Book, No. 199,367) 23 Tanner v. Hughes (53 Pa., 289) 34 Tate, Samuel P. (1 P. D., 449) 468 Taylor, George r. (55 Tex., 97) 150 Taylor, Wm. B. (9 P. D., 360) 468 Teeter, Edward H. (22 Fee P. L. Bk., 438) 376 Teller, United States r. (107 U. S. Rep., 64) 219 Terry, Cleveland, Columbus, etc., R. Co. V. (8 Ohio St., 570) 14 The Commissioner of Pensions (4 P. D., 225) 469 The Inhabitants of Twining, The King V. (2 B. & Aid., 387) 247 The King v. The Inhabitants of Twining (2 B. & Aid., 387) 247 The Laura (114 U. S., 441) 470 The Proctor (12 Wall., 702) 207 Thomas v. Thomas (124 Pa., 646) __ 498 Thompson, .Teannette (7P. D., 262)_ 330 Thompson, John B. (26 Fee P. L. Bk., 244) 376 Thompson, Margaret L. (9 P. D., 139) 500 Thompson, Matilda A. (30 Fee P. L. Bk., 70) 171 Till, William A. (8 P. D., 159) 71 TImberlake t\ Brewer (59 Ala., 108) 368 Tisdale v. Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (26 Iowa, 170) 245 Toal, James (7 P. D., 35) 144 Trask, Napoleon B. (9 P. D., 113) _ 359, 496 Travers, Alice E. (1 P. D., 110) 441 Trickey, Hartwell (8 P. D., 84) 81 Tryphene (5 P. D., o. s., 223) 468 Tubah, Catherine (8 P. D., 82)___ 257,386 Tweed, Insurance Company v. (7 Wall., 52) 494 U. Ubelhoer, Harris v. (76 N. Y., 169) _ 14 Ulrich, Christian, alias Ernest (4 P. D., 411) 305 United States v. Anderson (9 Wall., 56) 207 United States, Brown v. (113 U. S., 568) 470 United States v. B. & Mo. Riv. R. R. (98 U. S.. 334-341) 470 United States v. Emory (112 U. S. Rep., 510) 409 Paga United States v. Fisher (2 Cranch, 358) 467 United States v. Freeman (3 How- ard, 565) 260,283 United States v. Gilmore (8 Wall, 330) 470 United States v. Graham (110 U. S., 219-221) 470 United States v. Greathouse (4 Saw- yer, 472) :{fi7 United States v. Hall (98 U. S., 343) 81 United States, Harrison v. (20 C. Cls. Rep., 122) 219,414,431 United States v. Hill (120 U. S., 169) 470 United States v. Johnston (124 U. S., 236) 470 United States, McElrath v. (102 U. S., 438) ' L___ 207 United States v. North (112 U. S. Rep.. 510) 409 United States, Philbrick v. (120 U. S., 52-59) 470 United States v. Teller (107 U..S. Rep., 04) 219 United States, Young v. (97 U. S., 62) 368 Utica, Peach v. (10 Hun. N. Y., 477) 14 V. Van Buren v. Cockburn (14 Barb., N. Y., 122) 34,248 Vansickle, George (8 P. D., 336). 144,156 W. Wabash, Maloy v., etc., R. Co. (84 Mo., 270) 14 Walker, Samuel H., Mary E., widow of (7 P. D., 197) 312 Wangelin, Emma T., widow (9 P. D., 76) 322 Ward V. Dulaney (23 Miss., 410 )__ 34,248 Watkins, Augusta (6 P. D., 63) 36 West, Alvin (7 P. D., 74) 25 West V. N. J., etc.. Trans. Co. (32 N. J. L., 91) 14 West, Sarah E. (3 P. D., 115) 63,328 Weatherford, Weatherford v. (20 Ala., 548) 37 Whalen, Anna M. (9 P. D., 346) ___ 468 Whallan, Jessie M., widow (8 P. D., 131) 442 Wheeler, Bessie (9 P. D., 155) 257 Whitaker, E. W. (6 P. D., 179)__ 471,473 Whitaker v. Morrison (1 Fla., 29 )_ 34,248 White, .Tob (7 P. D., 312) ___ 147,283,294 White, Lockhart v. (18 Texas, 102) 36,247 Wilber, (irace v. (12 Johns, 68) 492 Wilkerson, Henry M., minors of (2 P. D., 251) 81 Wilkinson v. Payne (4 Durn and East's Rep., 468) 248 Willett V. Com. (13 Bush., Ky., 230) 36 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 39 Page. Williams, Francis M. (3 P. D., 401). 126 Williams, Joseph C. (7 P. D., 218) 156,489 Williams, Mary J., v. Newel Kil- burn (88 Mich., 279) 140 Wilson, Albert (8 P. D., o. s., 184) _ 256 Winn V. Lowell (1 Allen, Mass., 177) 14 Page. Wolhart, Jacob (8 P. D., 226) 152 Wood, Deddrick v. (15 Pa. St., 9)__ 467 Wyman, Shapley v. (124 Mass., 118) 14 Y. Yates V. Houston (3 Tex., 433) 247 Yell, Pennington v. (11 Ark., 212) __ 34 Yokel, Charles (8 P. D., 431) 400 LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. United States Statutes at Large. Page. 1790, April 30, military age 490 1795, March 3, military age 490 1799, March 2, revenue cutters 96 1802, March 16, military age 490 1812, January 11, military age 490 1813, January 20, military age 490 1813, January 29, military age 490 1814, December 10, military age 490 1848, July 19 (sec. 5), honorable dis- charge 410 1850, September 28, military age_-_ 490 1862, February 13, military age 490 1864, July 4: Declarations 47 Military age 490 1873, March 3 (sec. 21), nonresi- dents 437 1877, February 28, rate 404 1879, February 19, honorable dis- chai-ge 410 1879, March 3: Limitation 160 Schedule rates 67 1882, July 25: Nonresidents 437 (Sec. 5) double pensionl__ 420 1882, August 7 : Adulterous cohabitation — 58, 324, 327 Marriage 81, 251, 498 1882, August 8, payment 58 1883, March 3, third grade 125 1884, July 4, attorneys 362,377 1886, March 19, rate 403 1886, August 4 : Amputation 70 Increase 204 Rate 400 1887, January 29: Civilian employees 347 Desertion 382 Disability 341 Gilpin's battalion 108 Revenue cutters 96 Service 369,507 1888, August 27, deafness 67 1890, June 27 : Adulterous cohabitation 116 Civilian employees— 346, 360, 466 Commencement 102, 189, 216 Death in service 311 1890, 1892, 1892, 1892, 1893, 1893, 1894, 1895, June 27 — Continued. Page. Declarations 40, 42, 93, 167, 223, 272 Dependence 1, 2, 76, 249, 254, 299, 318, 320, 502 Desertion 155, 382 Disability 106, 156, 263 Disability — age 68 Disloyalty 146, 279, 294, 366 Dropping 50 Fee 136 Helpless minor 9, 26, 353 (See. 3) helpless minor 454 Honorable discharge 123, 144, 408, 413 Increase on account of minors 17 Insane minors 226 Length of service 119 Marriage 30 Medical examination 71 Militia 21 Minor's pension 151 Pilot 304 Rank — rate 406 Rate 404, 486 Rate — practice '. 435 Rate — reduction 413 Reduction 344 Reduction — rerating 83 Reimbursement and for wrong payment 149 Revenue cutters 395 Service 15, 126, 207 Special act 297 Vicious habits .252 July 14: Aid and attendance. 307, 349, 481 Commencement 503 Disability 423 July 27 : Desertion 382 Service 143, 178, 206 August 5, service, nurses 188 January 5 : Commencement 323 Powell's battalion 172 December 21, notice 166 July 18, inspection of papers. 475 March 2: Accrued pension 8, 276, 393 Nonresidents 438 40 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1895, March 2 — Continued. Page. Rating 4 1896, March 8, presumption of death .- 201 Page. 1896, March 6, commencement 65 1896, March 13, presumption of death 201 Sections of Revised Statutes of the United States. 471. Orders 478 471. Payment 58 1116 to 1118. Military age 491 2757. Revenue cutters 96, 182 4692. Service 4693. Service — militia 4693. Desertion 4603, 4694. Desertion 362 23 382 255 4698J. Commencement 259 4702. Accrued pension 4702. Death cause 4702. Legitimacy 8 359 80 4702. Special act and general law. 420 4703. Legitimacy 80 4705. Marriage — legitimacy 81 4706. Legitimacy 80 4707. Limitation 505 4713. Anterebellion service 220 4714. Declarations 7" 4716. Disloyalty 146, 279, 294, 366 4744. Specialist 73 4766. Payment 58 4876. Attorneys 377 State Statutes. Indiana, R. S., 1896, sec. 1024, marriage 7 Maryland, Stat. 1786, ch. 4, sec. 7, legitimacy : 7 Missouri, R. S., sec. 4475, legitimacy. 83 New York, 3 R. S., sec. 2232, mar- riage and divorce 200 Texas, R. S., sec. 2843, marriage Virginia, Code of 1873, pages 85 and 850 ; Code of 1860, page 529, mar- riage 209 PENSION DECISIONS -VOLUME 10. TABLE OF CASES CITED. A. Page. Aab, George (32 Fee P. L. Bk., 292) 149 Abry, Mary C, widow of John D. (8 P. D., 346) 60 Act of Congress, May, 1792 (sec. 1625, Rev. Stat.) 256 Act of Congress, Feb. 27, 1801 (2 Stat. L., 103) 307 Ague, Matilda (9 P. D., 327)- 247,286,288 2 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law (654) _ 182 5 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law (845)- 285 7 Am. and Eng. Enc of Law (pp. 70,73) 425 28 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law (49)- 310 American Life Ins. Co., Hancock r. (62 Mo., 26) 291 Ames, Joel (8 P. D., 171) 110 Amos, George W. (8 P. D., 271)- 249,250 Anderson, Margaret J. (4 P. D., 67) 224 Arendes, Margaretha (8 P. D., 425) _ 136 Arnold, Cheney v. (15 N. Y., 345)— 123 Athey. Sa villa (8 P. D., o. s., .373)— 420 Attorney-General (2 Op.. .532) 234 Attorney-General (10 Op., .562) 420 Attorney-General (12 Op., 66) 405 Attorney-General (13 Op., 150) 405 Attorney-General (14 Op.. 488) 406 Attorney-General (15 Op., 157)— 56,143 Attorney-General (17 Op., 221) 420 Attorney-General (19 Op., 533; 5 Op., 97) 133 Attorney-General (19 Op., 535) 134 Attorney-General (16 Op.. 147) 134 Ayres, Phebe A., mother of .John E. (6 P. D., 30) 247 B. Babb, Isaac N., alias John Dunlap (8 P. D., 59) 131 Baldwin, Maryland v. (112 U. S. 490) Ball, Burney v. (24 Ga., 505) Ball, T. W. (41 Cal., 29) 137 Balto., etc., R. Co. v. .Tames (95 U. S., 439) Banker, Robert C. (8 P. D., 302) _. Barclay, Potier v. (15 Ala., 439) _. 113 7 102 147 123 Page. Barleyoung. John (7 P. D., 453)— 19 Barlow. Henry (9 P. D., 347) 136 Barnes. James M. (8 P.- D., 94) 136 Barnnm r. Barnum (42 Md., 251)— 296. .304, .309. 310. 311 Barrington Waterworks Co., Blythe V. (25 L. J. Ex., 213) 102 Bashaw v. State (1 Yerg., 177) 123 Beach on Con. Neg. (sec. 377) .• 104 Beatrie, Schmisseur v. (147 111., 210) - 6 Bell, Henry M. (5 P. D., 196) ___ 169,170 Bennet, Graham v. (2 Cal., .503) 123 Bennett, Charles T. (7 P. D., 1)- 2^7,264 Bennett r. Smith (21 Barb. Ch., 4.39) 241 Berlin, H. S. (4 P. D., 97) 361 Bernstein, Adolph (7 P. I).. 229- 231) 109,245,419 Bianchi, Matteo (9 P. D., 220) 420 Bidlake, Daniel (3 P. D., 27) 197 Bigelow, Proctor r. (38 Mich., 282- 283) 122,123,308 Bishop Crim. Law (par. 989) 171 Bishop on . -ar. and Div. (par. 156)- 364 Bishop on Mar. and Div. (sec. 283 ,et seq.) — 122, .308 Bishop on Mar., Div., and Sep. (par. 6.33) Bishop on Mar., Div., and Sep. (par. 936 and note 5) Bishop on Mar., Div., and Sep, (pars. 942-943) 223 Bishop on Mar., Div., and Sep. (sec. 961) - Bishop on Mar., Div., and Sep. (sec. 1567) Bissell, Meister v. (96 U. S., 83 ; 2 Black, 599) 159 Blackburn i\ Crawford (3 Wall., 175) 114,121,309,342 Blackman, Crawford v. (17 Md., 49)- 308 Blake, Loughborough v. (5 Wheat., 317) Blake v. National Banks (23 Wall., 307) Blanchard v. Lambert (43 Iowa, 228) 41 296 296 165 285 117 101 318 42 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Blaiipy, Mary, Carmena, John v. (16 La. An., 245) 390 Blue, Ann (7 P. D., 122) 290 Blythe v. Barrington Waterworks Co. (25 L. J. Ex., 213) 102 Bone, Wallace G. (2 P. D., 310) __ 249, 250 Bonnaveau, Theresa (8 P. D., 507 )_ 140 Bonner, William (1 P. D., 346) 451 Boone v. Purn^ll (28 Md., 607, 627) 114,296,304,308 Borden. Washington (6 P. D., 17) __ 258 Boss, Marie L. (10 P. D., 36) 158,363 Boulden r. Mclntyre (119 Ind., 574) 182 Bowen, Sellmon i\ (8 Gill & John- son, 50) 304 Bowie V. Stonestreet (6 Md., 418) __ 425 Boyle, James (1 P. D., 149) 197 Bradt, Hiram H. G. (5 P. D., 282) __ 21 Brady, Mary (9 P. D., 305)_ 136,169,170 Bremer r. Briggs (32 Ohio St., 478) 211,214 Brewer, Cheseldine v. (Har. & McH., 152) 114, 123 Briggs, Bremer v. (32 Ohio St., 478) 211, 214 Briggs, Davie v. (97 U. S., 628) _ 163,291 Brinkley v. Brinkley (50 N. Y., 185) 123 Brooks, Elizabeth, widow of Samuel S. (265 L. B., 244) 183 Brown, Charles F. (3 P. D., 92) 53 Brown, George A. (8 P. D., 309) ___ 13 Brown, John C. (IP. D., 321) 451 Brown v. United States (113 TI. S., 568) 137 Brunswick, Newbury v. (2 Vt., 151) 123 Bryant, Chas. J. (7 P. D., 299) 252 Buckley, Mary C. (8 P. D., 195) ___ 296 B. and Mo. Riv. R. R., United States r. (98 U. S., 334-341) 137 Bull V. Schuberth (2 Md., 38) 425 Burney v. Ball (24 Ga., 505) 7 Burnham, John (4 P. D., 93)___ 249,250 Burton, Jeannette (9 P. D., 31) 425 Bush, mother of Patrick (5 L. B. P., 140; Dig. of Pens., p. 147) 364 Bush, Reed v. (5 Bim., 455) 137 Bush, Sarah (9 P. D., 114) 136 Butterfleld v. Smith (101 U. S., 570) 285 Butterworth v. Hoe (112 U. S., 50) _ 405 Calvert, Floyd v. (53 Miss., 37) 106 Camel, McCarter v. (1 Barb. (N. Y.) Ch., 455) 291 Cargile v. Wood (63 Mo., 501) . 344 Carley, Timothy L. (7 P. D., 12)___ 361 Carmena, John, v. Mary Blaney (16 La. An., 245) 390 Carmichael v. State (12 Ohio, n. s., 553) 123 Carmichael v. State (20 o. s., 553) _ 214 Cartwright v. McGowan (121 HU 388) 5 Page Case V. Case (17 Cal , 598) 123 Caton, James (3 P. D.. 121) 172,175 Caward, Everett (2 P. D., 297) 451 Chandler, Stewart v. (2 Bush., 278)_ 158 Chase, Sarah N. (7 P. D., 543) 249 Cheney v. Arnold (15 N. Y., 345) ___ 123 Cheseldine v. Brewer (1 Har. & McH., 152) 114,123 Chester, Londonderry r. (2 N. H., 268) 123 Childers, Isaac B. (358 L. B., p. 396) 414-415 Chollar, Caroline (4 P. D., 103) 374 Christie, Indiana (10 P. D., 15) 166, 220, 222, 344 Clark, Josiah W. (9 P. D., o. s., 462) 420 Clark, Rose v. (8 Paige, 574) 123 Clark, Sarah (7 P. D., 47) 147 Clayton v. Wardell (4 Comst., 230) _ 345 Clayton v. Wardell (4 N. Y., 230) __ 123 Coal Run Coal Company v. Jones (127 111., 379) 5 Cobb, Railroad Co. v. (35 o. s., 94) _ 214 Colby, Rowland A., widow of (7 P. D., 24) 420 Cole V. Cole (153 Ills., 585 and note) 6,182 Cole, Russel S. (4 P. D., 141) 125 Colgin, Susan (5 P. D., 127) 355,357 Collector. Gardner v. (5 Wall., 511) 101 Collector, Hadden r. (5 Wall., 112) _ 135 Collins, Hallett v. (10 How., 174) __ 123 Collins, Wilkie v. (48 Miss., 496)—- 182 Commissioner of Pensions (4 P. D., 225) 137 Commissioner of Pensions, Long v. (Sup. Ct. D. C, Feb., 1894) _.___ 176 Commissioner of Pensions, July, 1897 (9 P. D., 93) 253 Commonwealth r. Marshall (62 Pa. St., 328) 135 Commonwealth v. Stump (53 Pa. St., 132) 123 Comstock, Harriet (10 P. D., 220) __ 343 Coney, Angelina (7 P. D., 390) ___ 182,184 Congressional Record (No. 289, p. 5945) 246 Conray, Catharine (L. B., 318, p. 9) _ 223 Cooley on Torts (674) 104 Copes V. Pearce (7 Gill., 247) 308 Copes and Adams v. Pearse (7 Gill., 263) 304 Cotton, Walton v. (107 U. S., 64) __ 421 Covey, Daniel (7 P. D., 453) 413 Cox, Mary A. (3 P. D., 313) ___ 53,91,208 Grain, minors of Joseph (4 P. D., 358) 76 Crawford, Blackburn v. (3 Wall., 175) 114,121,309,342 Crawford v. Blackman (17 Md., 49)_ 308 Crawford, Joseph (7 P. D., 582) 110 Crawford, Robert (1 P. D., 153) 321 Cullen, James (6 P. D., 72) 355,357 Cunningham v. Cunningham (2 Dow P. C, 482) 296,309,345 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 43 Pag-e. li:i 136 Curtis, Fanny (colored) (2 P. D, 159) Cushman, Henry (7 P. D., 408) 1>. Daly, Thomas (2 P. D., 220) 140 Darby, Edward Lesser v. (12 Wheat., 207) 137 Darling. Elizabeth (10 P. D., 244) _ 303, 428 Davie r. BrigRS (07 U. S., 628) __ 163,291 Davis, minors of .Tohn (9 P. D., 151) 268 Deddrick v. Wood (15 Pa. St., 9) __ 135 Deering on Neg. (sec. 12) 104 Denison v. Denison (35 Md., 361) __ 113, 307,311,432 Dennis, Annie (9 P. D., 243) 118 Dickerson & Brown (49 Miss., 373) _ 106 Digest of Pension Laws (1885, p. 496, sec. 3 ; 12 Stat. L., 566, 567 )_ 300 Douglas V. Pike (101 U. S., 677) ___ 137 Downard, Ida M. (7 P. D., 290) 364 Downev, Robertson v. (127 U. S., 607)^ - 137 Dudgeon, Joseph A. (9 P. D., 413)^ 176 Duel, U. S. V. (172 U. S., 576) 405 Dumaresly v. Fishly (3 A. K. Marsh., 368) 123 Duncan v. Duncan (10 Ohio, n. s.. 181) 123 Durkee, Tames A. (8 P. D., 152) ___ 253 Duval, James (9 P. D., 218) _ 176,249,250 Dyer, Hattie G. (7 P. D., 160) 147 E. Eason, Joseph M. (31 Fee P. L. Bk., 168) 202 East, George (5 P. D., 243) 274 Eastrldge, Mary E. (8 P. D., 5)__ 249,250 Edwards edition Phillips Ev. (599) _ 123 Ehler, Keiffer r. (18 Pa. St., 388) __ 136 Eibel, Kate (7 P. D., 179) 355,357 Eisenlohr, O'Gara v. (38 N. Y., 296) 123 Encyclopedia of Law (p. 317) 171 English, Erwin r. (61 Conn., 502) __ 182 Erwin v. English (61 Conn., 502) __ 182 Estill V. Rogers (1 Bush., 62) 158,442 Evans, Cynthia (5 P. D., 188) 288 Ex parte Wells (18 How., 307) 171 F. Fain, Eliza (7 P. D., 572) 247,288 Fane, Amanda (10 P. D., 254) 363 Farnshill v. Murray (1 Bland, 479) 114,304 Farrell, Edward, et al. (7 P. D., 532) 18 Felber, Elizabeth (4 P. D., 329) 342. 344, 364 Fenton v. Reed (4 Johns., 52) 123 Few, Annie E. (8 P. D., 95) 136 Finch, Hale v. (104 IT. S., 261) 285 Finney v. State (3 Head, 544) 343 Fisher v. Hardin (1 Paine, 55) 411 Page. Fisher, United States v. (2 Cranch, 358) 135 Fishly, Dumaresly v. (3 A. K. Marsh., 368) 123 Fleck, George W. (7 P. D., 343) __ 136, 171 Floyd V. Calvert (53 Miss., 37) 106 Ford, Daniel B. (9 P. D., 137) 145 Ford, Harriet (5 P. D., 239) 342. .344 Foster v. Hawly (8 Hun. N. Y., 68) _ 229 Foutenette, Pierre f. (25 La. An., 617) 36 Freeman on Judgments (sees. 127- 334) 285,411 Freeman, United States r. (3 How., 565) 419 Frisbie v. United States (157 U. S., 160-166) 40S Fuller, Sally R. (10 P. D., 238) 389 G. . Gaines, Patterson v. (6 How., 550) _ 159 Gardner v. Collector (5 Wall., 511) J 101 Gardener, Malinda v. (24 Ala., 719) _ 364 Gardiner, Hallowell v. (1 Me., 93) __ 136 Gazzam, Stone v. (46 Ala., 269) 159 Geiger, Helen M., widow of David M. (9 P. D., 28) 139-140 Gemberling. George W. (1 P. D., 213) 451 German, Eunice D. (7 P. D., 503) __ 344 Gierhart, Emma (6 P. D., 155) ^___ 364 Gilbert, George W. (9 P. D., 279) 73, 210, 420 Gilmore, United States r. (8 Wall., 330) 137 Girod V. Lewis (6 Mart. La., 559) __ 36 Girod V. Lewis (7 Mart. La., 559)- 364-365 Goodman v. Goodman (28 L. J.. ch. 1) 308 Graham v. Bennet (2 Cal., 503) 123 Graham, United States v. (110 U.S., 219-221) - 137 Gray, Alice (7 P. D., 134) 286,288 Gray v. Larrimore (4 Shaw, 638) 411 Greenawalt v. McEnelley (85 Pa. State Rep., 352) 120, 425 Greenleaf on Ev. (par. 460) 308 Greenleaf on Ev. (par. 462) 123 Greenleaf on Ev: (par. 201, note 1)_ 425 Greenleaf on Ev. (sec. 523) 285 Grisham v. State (2 Yerg., 589) 123 Grooms, Sarah J. (7 P. D., 207, 210) 30, 288 H. Hadden r. Collector (5 WalL, 112)__ 135 Hale V. Finch (104 U. S., 261) 285 Half hill, Elizabeth J. (8 P. D., 467) 355,357 Hall V. United States (92 U. S., 27 )_ , 105 Hallett V. Collins (10 How., 174) ___ 123 Hallowell v. Gardiner (1 Me., 93) __ 136 Halso r. Seawright (65 Ala., 432)— 293 Halstead, Henry (2 P. D., 221) 197 Hancock r. American Life Ins. Co. (62 Mo., 26) 291 44 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Hantz V. Sealy (6 BInn., 405) 128 Hardin, Fisher r. (1 Paine, 55) 411 Harris, Catherine (widow) (2 P. !>., o. s., 256) 109 Harris, Elisha (29 Fee P. L. Bk., 406) 147 Harris v. Harris (8 Bradwell, HI., App., 57) -- 6 Harrison r. United States (20 C. Cls. R., 122) 176 Harvey, Rachael (7 P. 1)., 600) 344 Hawliins, I^ttie (colored) (8 P. D., 22) 36,158,432,441 Hawly, Fosters. (8 Hun, N. Y.,-68)_ 220 Hayden, Sarah C. (8 P. D., 364) ___ 16, 162, 166, 310 Hayes. James A. (7 P. D., 190) 245 Haynes r. McDermott (82 N. Y.. 41) 123 Haynie, Henry N. (9 P. D., 304) ___ 136, 182, 184 Ilecliert /•. Hile's Administrator (90 Va., 390) 17 Henry, Parton r. (1 Gray, Mass., 119) _^ 122,308 Hervey r. Hervey (2 W. Bl., 877)— 308 Hiclis, James L. (8 P. D., 518) 9, 20 HIggins, Annie, widow of Henry (10 P. D., 110) 307,308 Hile's Administrator, Heckert r. (90 Va., 390) 17 Hill, John J. (7 P. D., 143) 208 Hill, United States v. (120 V. S., 109) 137 Hilton, George D. (8 P. D., 182) ___ 148 Hix, Rachel M. (7 P. D., 259) 109 Hoe, Butterworth r. (112 U. S., 50) _ 405 Hoepfner, Louisa S. (9 P. D., 497)__ 16, 166, 220, 222, 224 HoCfman, Geo. M. (10 P. D., 268) ___ 360 Holmes v. Holmes (6 La. R., 463) __ 123 Holtzman, Thomas r. (18 D. C, 62) 110, .307 Holtzworth, Eveline (7 P. D., 48) __ 71 Holyoke Co. v. Lyman (15 Wall., 500) 108 Hook, Samuel (8 P. D., 367) 209 Houston r. Moore (5 Wheat., 1) 356 Houston, Yates r. (3 Tex., 433) 216 Howard v. Howard (6 Jones, N. C, 235) 264 Howard, Lafayette (8 P. D., 230) __ 268 Howey, Pearson t. (6 Halst., 12)___ 123 Hoyt, Birney (1 P. D., 70) 249,250 Hughes, .Tuda (7 P. D., 107) 158 Hughes, William H. (9 P. D., 152) _ 177, 322, 323 Hunt's appeal (86 Pa. St., 294 )_ 16, 166, 296 Hurst, Albert G. (14 P. D., o. s., 472) 321 Hurst, Joseph S. (13 P. D., o. s., 292) 88 Hurst, Mary Ann (9 P. D., 406) 303 Hutchins v. Kimmel (31 Mich., 126) 122, 123, 156, 308 I. Instructions (7 P. D., 240) 140 Instructions (9 P. D., 93)____ 310 Instructions to Commissioner of Pen- sions (4 P. D., 382) - 355 J. Page. Jackson v. Jackson (80 Md., 176; 82 Md., 17) 114,304,308,309,311 Jackson v. Winne (7 Wend., 47)___ 123 James, Balto., etc., R. Co. v. (95 U. S., 439) 102 Jarnigon r. Jarnigon (12 Lea, 292) _ 344 .Tenkins, Turner v. (1 II. & G., 161) _ 425 Jewell r. .Tewell (1 How., U. S., 219- 232) 308 Johannes, Charles W. (9 P. D., 341 )_ 30 Johns, William B. (2 P. D., 293) ___ 140 .Johnson, Charles A. (7 Fee P. L. Bk., 504) 201 Johnson, Demas, Sinai D. .Johnson r. (45 Mo., 595) 364 Johnson, Isaac (7 P. D., 105) 201 John.son r. Johnson (114 111., 611) _ 6 Johnson, Sinai D., r. Demas John- son (45 Mo., 595) 364 Johnson, Minors of William (9 I'. I>., 452) 25 Johnston, United States r. (124 U. S., 236) 137 Jones r. .Jones (45 Md., 144, 159 ; 48 Md., 391) 114,304,308,310,311 Jones, Coal Run Coal Co. r. (127 111., 379) 5 Jones, Jacob S. (7 P. D., 73) 201 Judd, John Henry (33 Fee P. L. Bk., 203) 413 Judson, Phineas D. (8 P. D., 185) _ 191,192 K. Keating. .James (7 P. D., 280) ___ 191,192 Keeling, Stones v. (5 Call, 143) 16 Keiffer v. Ehler (18 Pa. St., .388) ___ 136 Kellogg, Mil. Rwy. Co. v. (94 U. S., 474) ' 102 Kemp, Smelting Co. v. (104 U. S., 6.36,640) 405 2 Kent Com. (90, 91) 122,308 Kent, Fredrika, widow of Robert E. (10 P. D., 211) 229,319 Ketchum v. Kimmel (31 Mich., 126) _ 164 Keyes v. Keyes (2 Fost., 553) 123 Keyes, Samuel W. (7 P. D., 78) 151 Kiley, David (8 P. D., 449) 50 Kille, Mary (7 P. D., 550) 244,246 Kilmarnock, Miio v. (11 Me., 455)— 136 Kimmel, Hutchins v. (31 Mich., 126) _ 122, 123, 156, 308 Kimmel, Ketchum v. (31 Mich., 126) _ 164 Kinney, .L F. (4 P. D., 132) 364 Kite, Alfred (9 P. D., o. s., 232) 235 Knabe v. Rice (106 Ala., 516) 293 Koch, United States v. (21 Fed. Rep., 873) 408 Koler, Geo. and Albert (5 P. D., 99). 364 Lake, .Josephine (177 P. L. B., 74) __ Lambert, Blanchard v. (43 Iowa, 228) 318 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 45 Page. Lambert, United States v. (2 Cranch C. C, 137) 11-t Larrimore, Gray v. (4 Shaw, G38)__ 411 Larsen. Lars (28 Fee P. L. Bk., 380) -'01 Latham, Emily (5 P. D., 170) 76 LauRhlin, John (8 P. D., 52) 25 Laughlin, John (9 V. D., 466) 135, 161), 170, 182, 184 Lazarus, O'Rear r. (8 Colo., 608) _— 440 Lee, Shadrick (9 P. D., 214) 50 Leonard, K. S. (9 P. D., 194 »__•____ 136 Leslie. Helen M. (6 P. D., 255) 140 Lesser, Edward, v. Darby (12 Wheat., 207) 137 Lessor, George (8 P. 1)., 114) 56 Lewis, Girod v. (6 Mart. La., 559 )__ 36 Lewis, Girod v. (7 Mart. La., 559 )_ 364, 365 Lewis, Mercy (5 P. D., 293) 2 Lewis, Samuel H. (7 P. D., 69) 192 Lincoln r. Tower (2 McL., 473) 411 Livingston, Summerlin r. (15 I^a. An., 519) 395 Londonderry v. Chester (2 N. IL, 268) 123 Long V. Commissioner of Pensions (Sup. Ct. D. C, Feb.. 1894) 176 Longee, Augustus IL (7 1'. I).. 586). 131 Loughborough r. Blake (5 Wheat., 317) 117 Louisiana Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tweed (7 Wall., 52) 102 Lyman, Holyoke Co. v. (15 Wall., 500) 108 Lyon, Euroda H., widow of Matthew M. (7 P. D., 215) 140,215 Mc. McCarter r. Camel (1 Barb. (N. Y.), ch. 455) 291 McCarthy, Maria (10 P. D., 118) ___ 307 McCollum, Mary B. (6 P. D., 93)___ 216 McCormick, United States r. (1 Cranch C. C, 593) 114 McCullum, Abram (6 P. D., o. s.. Ill) 21 McDermott, Haynes v. (82 N. Y., 41 ) _ 123 McDonough, Henry (6 P. D., o. s., 475) 22 McEnelley, Greenawalt r. (85 Pa. State Rep., 352) 120,425 McGowan v. Cartwright (121 111., 388) ■ 5 Mclntyre, Boulden v. (119 Ind., 574) 182 McLaughlin, John H. (2 P. D., 85) __ 451 McMahon, Bernard J. (Jane, alleged widow of) (L. B., 178, p. 151)—- 424 McNabb, John O. (7 P. D., 43) 423 M. Mackey, Francis (8 P. D., 535) 184 Malinda r. Gardener (24 Ala., 719 )_ 364 Manning, Reynolds v. (15 Md., 510) _ 425 Page. Marshall, Commonwealth v. (62 Pa. St., 328) 135 Marshall, James M. (8 P. D., 395)_ 249,250 Martin, Jackson (7 P. D., 265) 249,250 Martin v. Mott (12 Wheat., 19) 356 Maryland v. Baldwin (112 U. S., 490) 113 Matter of Taylor (9 I'aige, 611) 123 Mayo, Americus (7 P. D., 531) 191,192 Meister v. Bissell (96 U. S., 83; 2 Black, 599) 159 Meister v. Moore (96 U. S., 76) 110, 213, 307, 308 Merritt, Maria (10 P. D., 157) 363 Milo V. Kilmarnock (11 Me., 455)— 136 Mil. Railway Co. v. Kellogg (94 U. S.. 474) 102 Mitchell, David K. (1 P. D., 62) 197 Monholland, Frances A. ( 7 P. D., 494) 1 285 Monteton, Wilhelmina K. (10 P. D., 12) 220, 222 Moore, Houston v. (5 Wheat., 1) 356 Moore, Meister v. (96 U. S., 76) 110, 122, 159, 213, 307, 308 Moore, State r. Ul U. S., 160) 291 Moran, Margaret (9 P. D., 492) 102 Morris, widow of Elwood (9 P. D., 353) 25 Morse, Thankful (1 P. D., 56) 224 Mott, Martin v. (12 Wheat, 19) _— 356 Mueller, Fritz (2 P. D., 192) 451 Mundchandler, Stewart v. (2 Bush., 278) 159 Murphy, State v. (6 Ala., 765) 123 Murray, Fornshili v. (1 Bland Ch., 482) 114, 304 N. Nash, De Witt C. (10 P. D., 141) _ 355, 357 National Banks, Blake v. (23 Wall., 307) 101 National Bank, Railroad Co. v. (102 U. S., 14) 285 Newbury v. Brunswick (2 Vt., 151 )_ 123 Newell, Williams v. (68 Mich., 27-©)- 164 Newman, Henry (8 P. D., 532) 219 Nix, Jacob (4 P. D., o. s., 260) 234 North, United States v. (112 U. S., 510) 140 Northfield v. Vershire (33 Vt., 110)- 123 Norton, John (9 P. D., 382) 56, 142, 355, 357 O'Gara v. Eisenlohr (38 N. Y., 296) _ 123 Oiler, Jacob (7 I'. D., 411) 13 Ollendorf, Minors of Louis (8 P. D., 272) 147 O'Rear r. Lazarus (8 Colo., 680) __- 440 Owen, Watts et al. r. (62 Wis., 512) 227. 2:iO Ozborn, Sarah H. (7 P. D., 317)- 245,419 46 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. P. Page. Palmer, Ellen A. (7 P. I)., 363)-— 220, 222 PartoD v. Henry (1 Gray (Mass.), 119) 122, 30S Patterson v. Gaines (6 How., 550)- 159 Patterson, State v. (2 Ired., 846) 123 Patton V. Philadelphia (1 La. Ann., 98) 123 Pearce's Succession (30 La. Ab., 1168) 30 Pearse, Copes and Adams v. (7 Gill. 247-263) 304,308 Pearson r. Howey (6 Halst., 12) 123 Peck, Starr r. (1 Hill, 270) 1 123 Peet i: Peet (52 Mich., 464-467 )_ 156,216 Pendleton, John (5 P. D., 217) 76 Pennabaker, C. D. (2 P. D., 257) ___ 361 People, Stewart, dependent father of John J. (32 Fee P. L. Bk., p. 395) 431 Pepper, Helen L. (9 P. U., 500) 162 Philadelphia, Patton v. (1 La. Ann., 98) 123 Philbrick v. United States (120 U. S., 52-59) ^ 137 Philips, Isaac N. (3 P. D., 377) 136 Philips r. State (15 Ga., 518) 136 Pierre v. Foutenette (25 La. Ann., 617) 36 Pike, Douglas v. (101 U. S., 677)-— 137 Pinckley, Ann F. (8 P. D., 446) 71 Potier V. Barclay (15 Ala., 439) 123 Preston, Hilliard (8 P. D., 374) 197 Presbury, Williard V. (14 Wall., 676) 117 Price v. Price (124 N. Y., 598) _— 23S, 243 Proctor V. Bigelow (38 Mich., 282, 283) 122,123,308 Pulver, Jonas W. (10 P. D., 227)— 363 Purnell, Boone v. (28 Md., 607, 627) 114,296,304,308 R. Railroad Co. v. Cobb (35 U. S., 94 )_ 214 Railroad Co. v. National Bank (102 U. S., 14) 285 Randolph, Burton (2 P. D., 335) — - 420 Reading Fire Ins. and Trust Co. (113 Pa., 204) 296 Redgrave v. Redgrave (38 Md., 97 )_ 114, 304, 308, 309, 311 Reed v. Bush (5 Binn., 455) 137 Reed, Fenton v. (4 Johns., 52) 123 Reed, Webster v. (1 How., 437) 285 Reeves on Domestic Relations (88, 200) 308 Reeves on Domestic Relations (198, 200) 122 Reynolds, John W. (IP. D., o. s., 223) 136 Reynolds r. Manning (15 Md., 510) _ 425 Rice, Knabe r. (106 Ala., 516) 293 Rich, John M. (4 P. D., 234) 2 Page. Richardson r. Smith (80 Md., 89, 189) 304,308,311 Ridenour, Margaret (5 P. D., 146) -_ 248 Ridgway, Basil T. (9 P. D., 300) ___ 136 Roach. Nannie (7 P. D., 80)- 159,441,442 Robbins, Alexander (7 P. D., 358) __ 144 Robertson r. Downey (127 U. S., 607) : - 137 Rogers, Estill r. (1 Bush., 62)__ 158,442 Rohn. Preston M. (10 P. D., 73) _— 323 Rood, State v. (12 Vt., 396) 123 Roper, Spencer v. (13 Ired. (N. C), 333) 291 Rose I-. Clark (8 Paige, 574) 123 Rose r. Rose (67 Mich., 619) 220,222 Ross /•. Ross (34 La. Ann., 860) 36 Ross. William (8 P. D., 407) 140 Ruhl, John H. (8 P. D., 351) 82 Runnel, David G. (2 P. D., 91) 451 S. Schmidlin, Elizabeth (6 P. D.. 200) _ 224 Schmisseur v. Beatrie (147 HI., 210)- 6 Schoepf, John (7 V. D., 19)__- 168 Schuberth, Bull r. (2 Md., 38) 425 Schuler, widow of John H. (8 P. 1)., 462) 20 Scott, Nancy E. (6 P. D., 185) 412 Scott, United States v. (25 Fed. Rep.. 470, 472) 405 Sealy, Hantz v. (6 Binn., 405) 123 Seawright, Ilalso r. (65 Ala., 432) _ 293 Sell, Isaac (2 P. D., 172) 249,250 Sellmon r. Bowen (8 Gill and John- son, 50) 304 Server, Ann Eliza (7 P. D.,468) 165, 224, 344, 397 Shannon, Andrew J. (7 P. D., 64)— 133, 136, 184 Sherman and Red., on Neg. (sec. 25) _ 104 Showalters, Simon P. (7 P. D., 478) 110 Silvis, Amos (4 F. P. L. Bk., 6) 199 Sinla, Polly Ann Chulaska (7 P. D., 353) 36, 158 Smart r. Whaley (6 Smed. & M., Miss., ch. 308) 390 Smelting Co. v. Kemp (104 U. S., 636, 640) 405 Smith, Bennet v. (21 Barb., ch. 439) 241 Smith, Butterfleld v. (101 U. S., 570) 285 Smith, J. Ambler (Atty.) (7 I*. D., 69) 192 Smith, Nanna J. (9 P. D., 359) 54 Smith, Richardson v. (80 Md., 89, 189) 304,308,311 Smith V. Wood (31 Md., 293) 425 Snow, Davis S. (1 Fee P. L. Bk., 305) 200 1 Starkie Ev. (45) 123 Statesman, minors of Samuel (2 P. D.. o. s., 345) 76 State, Bashaw v, (1 Yerg., 177) 123 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 47 Page. State, Carmichael r. (1-' Ohio, N. S., 553) 123 State, Carmichael v. (20 O. S., 214)_ 553 State, Finney v. (3 Head, 544) 343 State, Grisham v. (2 Yerg., 589) ___ 123 State f. Moore (11 Ired. (N. C), 160) ; , 291 State V. Murphy (6 Ala., 765) 123 State V. Patterson (2 Ired., 346)— 123 Starr r. Peck (1 Hill, 270) 123 State, Philips v. (15 Ga., 518 136 State V. Rood (12 Vt., 396) ___..— 123 State, Swartz v. (33 Ohio C. C. Rep., 62) 211 State ^\ Worthingham (23 Minn., 523) 216 Stet2sell, Frances (9 P. D., 9) 25 Stewart v. Chandler (2 Bush., 278) _ 158 Stewart on Husband and Wife (sec. 9) 159 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (par. 46) 296 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sees. 23, 74, 150, 151) 105 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sec. 126) 318 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sees. 76, 132) 165,213 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sec. 426) 285 Stewart v. Mundchandler (2 Bush., 278) ^ 159 Stine, Jasper M. (9 P. D., 488) __ 356,357 Stone V. Gazzam (46 Ala., 269) 159 Stones V. Keeling (5 Call, 143) 16 Stonestreet, Bowie v. (6 Md., 418) __ 425 Strange, Thomas H. (7 P. D., 36) __ 47, 48,50 Striggon, Elizabeth (8 P. D., 12)___ 151 Stump, Commonwealth v. (53 Penn. St., 132) 123 Stymest v. Stymest (4 Dist. Rep. Pa., 305) 182 S. C. (10 Am. Rep., 460) 123 S. C. (37 Am. Rep., 538) 123 Spencer v. Roper (13 Ired. N. C, 333) 291 Spires, Jacob C. (30 F. P. L. Bk., 480) 200 Summerlin v. Livingston (15 La. An., 519) 395 T. 1'allman, Eveline S. (6 P. D., 361 )__ 140 Tasher, Samuel B. (30 Pee P. L. Bk., 489) 201 Tate, Samuel P. (1 P. D., 449) 136 T-aylor's Evidence (sees. 140, 517) __ 308 Taylor, John T. (1 P. D., 281) 451 Taylor, Matter of (9 Paige, 611) ___ 123 Taylor, Wesley W. (1 P. D., 359)— 451 Taylor, William B. (9 P. D., 360___ 136 Teller, United States v. (107 U. S., 64) 421 Page. Thatcher, mother of Frederick (7 L. B. P., 119) 130 The Laura (114 U. S., 441) 137 Thomas v. Holtzman (18 D. C, 62) 110, 307 Thomas, Margaret L. (9 P. D., 139) 162, 167, 223 Thomas v. Thomas (124 Pa. Stat., 646) 16 Thomas, William B. (9 P. D., 139) _ 164 Thompson, Jennette (7 P. D., 262) _ 287 Tinnin, Harriet (8 P. D., 218) 106 Toller, William (7 P. D., 545) 363 Toller, William, minors of (10 P. D., 75) 363 Totten, Nathan (7 P. D., 33) 140 Tower, Lincoln v. (2 McL., 473) ___ 411 Trask, Napoleon B. (9 P. D., 113) 53, 91, 208 Treatise on the Practice "of the Pen- sion Bureau (p. 117, par. 2) 80 Trickey, Hartwell (8 P. D., 84) 363 Tryphene (5 P. D., o. s., 291) 136 Turner v. Jenkins (1 H. & G., 161 )__ 425 Tweed, Louisiana Mutual Insurance Co. V. (Wall., 52) 102 XJ. Ulrich, Christian, alias Ernest (4 P. D., 411) 169, 170 United States, Brown v. (113 U. S., 568) 137 United States v. B. and Mo. Riv. R. R. (98 U. S., 334-341) 137 United States v. Duel (172 U. S., 576) 405 United States v. Fisher (2 Cranch, 358) 135 United States v. Freeman (3 How- ard, 565) 419 United States, Frisbie v. (157 U. S., 160, 166) 408 United States v. Gilmore' (8 Wall., 330) i:{7 United States v. Graham (110 U. S., 219-221) 137 United States, Hall v. (92 U. S., 27) 105 United States, Harrison v. (20 C. Cls. R., 122) 176 United States v. Hill (120 U. S., 169)-__- 137 United States v. Johnston (124 U. S., 236) 137 United States v. Koch (21 Fed. Rep., p. 837) 408 United States v. Lambert (2 Cranch C. C, 137) 114 United States v. McCormick (1 Cranch C. C, 593) 114 United States v. North (112 U. S., 510) 140 United States, Philbrick v. (120 U. S., 52-59) 137 United States v. Scott (25 Fed. Rep., 470, 472) — 405 48 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. United States v. Teller (107 U. S., 64) 421 Van Alstine, mother of Abram (4 P. D., 349) 248 Vandergriff, widow and minors of John (5 P. D., 151) 374 Vershire, Northfield v. (33 Vt., 110) _ 123 ^v. Walker, Mary E., widow of Samuel H. (7 P. D., 197) 83,355,357 Walton V. Cotton (19 How., 355)— 421 Warden, Clayton v. (14 N. Y., 230) _ 123, 345 Warmoth, Isaac S. (3 P. D., 324 )__ 420 Washington, Patsey, widow of Jo- seph (8 I*. D., 363) 433 Watson, William B. (9 P. D., 395) _ 402 Watts et al. i'. Owen (62 Wis., 512) 227, 230 Webster v. Reed (11 How., 437) ___ 285 Wescott, Alonzo (1 P. D., 316) 197 West, Sarah E., (3 P. D., 115) 288 Whalen, Anna M. (9 P. D„ 346) ___ 136, 182, 184 Whaley, Smart v. (6 Smed. & M.. Miss., ch. 308) 396 Wharton on Ev. (sec. 1298) 165 Wharton on Neg. (sec. 300) 104 Wheaton, Chas. C. (9 P. D., 156) __ 258 Wheeler, Bessie C. (9 P. D., 155)- 355,357 White, Job (7 P. D., 312) 88 White, Peter F. (2 P. D., 399) 200 Wiley, Rebecca (10 P. D., 304) 432. Wilkie r. Collins (48 Miss.. 496) ___ 182 Williams, Elizabeth M. (9 P. D., 117) ___ 147 Williams, minors of Peter (2 P. D,, 383) 76 Williams, minors of Peter (7 P. D., 545) ^__ 78 Williams v. Newell (68 Mich., 279) _ 164 Williams, Susan (10 P. I)., 82)__ 355,357 Williams r. Williams (46 Wis.. 464) 227 Williamson, Isaac (1 P. D., 7) 197 Williard v. Presbury (14 Wall., 676) 117 Wilson, David (9 P. D., 404) 21 Wilson, Hannah (Mex. War widows, 3 P. D., 283) 325 Wilson, William (10 P. D., 232) __ 249,250 Winne, Jackson v. (7 Wend., 47) 123 Wood, Cargile v. (63 Mo., 501) 344 Wood, Deddrick r. (15 Pa. St.. 9)__ 135 Wood, Smith r. (31 Md., 293) 425 Worthingham, State v. (23 Minn., 523) 216 Y. Yardley (75 Pa. St., 207, 212) 296 Yardley's Estate (25 P. F. Smith, 25) 296 Yates V. Houston (3 Tex., 433) 216 Yokel, Charles (8 P. D., 31) 13 Young, Elizabeth (9 P. D., 44) 139 Young, Jacob (9 1\ D., 147) 39 Young, Elizabeth, widow of William E. (9 P. D., 44) -. 427 LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. United States Statutes at Large. fage. 1801, February 27 (2 Stat. L., 103), Maryland laws 307 1814, March 4, half-pay pensions 420 1832, June 7, half pay to widows 420 1861, July 22, arrears of pay 363 1861, March 2, attorneys 404 1862, March 25, service 59 1862, July 4, attorneys 404 1862, July 17, attorneys 405 1863, March 3 (12 Stat. L., 762)___ 116 1864, July 4 : Attorneys 404 Colored widows and chil- dren 160 Limitation 419 1864, July 14, draft 357 1866, June 6, attorneys 401 1866, July 28 : Arrears of pay 363 Attorneys 405 1867, March 29 (joint resolution), attorneys 404 1868, July 27, minors 466 1868, 1869, 1870, 1872, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1882, Page. July 29, attorneys 405 April 10, attorneys 404 July 8, attorneys 404 May 15, military age 357 May 21, attorneys 404 March 3, minors 466 June 18 : Helpless minor 226 Rating 100 June 20, attorneys 404 March 3 : Commencement 142 Minors 466* June 16, rate 445 August 7 : Adulterous cohabitation 153, 158, 286 (Amending sec. 4702), proof of marriage 16, 17 Desertion — 171 Marriage 213,231,363,442 Minor's pension 124 Proof of marriage 164, 165 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 49 Page. 1883, March 3, rate i'2 1884, June 3, rerating — specialist — 99 1884, June 18, rate 445 1884, July 4 : Attorneys 404 Fee agreements 199 Sees. 3-4, fee 148, 149, 403 1884, July 5, desertion 171 1885, February 15 (joint resolu- tion), Missouri militia 19,20 1886, March 19 : Attorneys • 405 Widow's rate 12,111,301 1886, May 17, desertion 171 1887, January 29 : Increase 64 Remarriage 324 Service — Mexican war _ 139, 424 Widow's means of support- 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 1888, August 27, rating 261 1890, March 4 : Aid and attendance 172 Helpless minor 226 Rate 443 1890, June 27 : Appeals 458 Attorneys 404, 460 Civilian 135 Commencement, act March 6, 1896 73, 252 Declarations — amendments 177, 365 Dependence 9, 67, 299, 326 Dependent parents 428 Desertion 355 Disability— rate 256 Discharge 82, 141 Dishonorable discharge 14 Disloyalty 72 Fee — election 61, 167, 415 1890, June 27 — Continued. Page. Hawkins Taylor Commis- sion 270 Helpless minor 22, 224, 368 Marriage 266 Marriage of colored soldiers 157 Marriage of insane person_ 192 Marriage in Missouri 362 Marriage of slaves 441 Minor's pension 124 Missouri militia 19 Pending claim accrued pen- sion 109 Pilot 182 Practice — rate 397 Rate — reduction 176 Rating 13,261 Reimbursement — fee 150 Remarriage — mothers 244 Restoration — increase 37 Section 4716, R. S 210 Service 8,58,402 Service,, length of 169 Service in rebellion IS 1890, July 1, declarations, execu- tion of 293 1891, March 3, attorneys — fee 199, 404, 405, 412 1892, July 14: Aid and attendance 172 Increase — commencement 66 1892, July 27, Indian wars 26 1893, January 5, increase 64 1894, July 18, attorneys 404 1895, March 2, accrued pension 159, 322 1896, March 6: Commencement 73, 250, 400 Reopening 321 1896, March 13, presumption of death 7 1898, June 8, construing special act_ 99 1899, March 3, attorneys 236,403 Sections of Revised Statutes of the United States. Page. Constitution, sec. 2, art. 2, militia— 356 164. Order rating 262,256 225. Order rating 262, 257 471. Practice 391 1094. Service — civil service 133 1642. Militia 356 1644. Militia 356 1792. May 8 (sec. 1625 R. S.), mil- itary age 356 2037. Marriage of slaves 76, 77 2037. Proof of marriage 363 4692-3. Rating 261 4693. Civilian employees 135, 138, 170 4693. Service 133 46981. Increase — fee 37, 39 4695. Widows— rate l 301 4702. Civilian employee !__ 170 4702. Death cause 54, 56 4702. Marriage 410 13070—06 i Page. 4702. Minor's pension 226, 227, 465 4704. Legitimacy 104, 107, 231 4705. Act June 27, 1890, proof of marriage 432 4705. Death cause 191 4705. Legitimacy 231 4705. Marriage of colored soldiers 157 4705. Marriage of slaves 442 4705. Minors 75 4705. Proof of marriage 363 4705. Widows of colored soldiers_ 104, 107 4707. Act March 18, 1886 298 4707. Dependence 29, 31 4707. Dependent parents — rate 428 4707. Legitimacy 363 4707. Mother's claims 244 4708. Remarriage 325 4709. Minors 466 4713. Limitation — minors 417 50 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. 4714. Declarations, execution of 292 4715. Double pension 84,282 4715. Election 61 4710. Aliens 72 4716. Disloyalty 87, 125 4716. Act June 27, 1890 210 4718. Accrued pension 322 Page. 4718. Pending claim 109 4722. Missouri militia 19, 20 4723. Colored soldiers 104, 108 4724. Double pensions 282 4725. Half-pay pensions 420 4786. Fee — fee agreements 149 State Statutes. Alabama, Civil Code (1876) sec. 702 293 Iowa, Code, sec. 2526 123 Kentuclty, February 14, 1866, mar- riage of colored persons 158, 442 Maryland, 1877, marriage 113 Maryland, Stats. 1777, sees. 3-5, marriage 307 Maryland, 1878, Code, art. 51, mar- riage 432 Maryland, Code, vol. 1, art. 35, sec. 2, marriage , 304 Michigan, Revised Statutes (1882), vol. 2, chap. 237, sec. 2, marriage- 195 Page. Mississippi, December 1, 1869, art. 12, sec. 22 106 Missouri, 1865, Stats., 68, marriage- 364 New Yorli, Code, Civ. Pro. (1848), sees. 1743, 1744-1754, marriage, nullity 241, 243, 389 New York, I^aws of 1896, chap. 272, sec. 4, marriage 242 I'ennsylvania, Stats., sec. 4839, adul- tery 343 Wisconsin, R. S., sec. 2274, legiti- macy 264 PENSION DECISIONS— VOLUME 11. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Page. A. Aab, George (9 P. D., 377) 49,203 Abbott, James J. (8 P. D., 79) 491 Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co., United States v. (142 U. S., 615- 621) _ 79 Allen, Elishup P. (9 P. D., 19) 492 Alexander, A. P. (6 P. D., 40) 432 Alexander, Enoch (11 P. D., 151 )__ 441 American and English Encyclopedia (3, pp. 757, 758) 117 American and English Encyclopedia (8, pp. 654-656) 202 American and English Encyclopedia (10, pp. 346-347) 293 American and English Encyclopedia (12, pp. 147-271) 229,233 American and English Encyclopedia (22, p. 789) 340 American and English Encyclopedia (23, pp. 448, 452) 79,117 Ammerman, William M. (1 P. D., 5) 56 Anderst)n, Ellen (6 P. D., 197) 33 Andrew v. Simmons (68 Miss., 732)- 340 Assistant Attorney-General (5 P. D., 310) 13 Assistant Attorney-General (6 P. D., 297) 250 Attorney-General (7 Op., 149 ; 2 P. D., 403) 34 Attorney-General (15 Op., 157)— 334,366 Attorney-General (19 Op., 1) 361 Attorney-General (20 Op., 322) 12,13 Ayres, Hinkley v. (105 Cal., 357) __ 145 Babcock, Robins B. (7 P. D., 285) _ 430, 493 Barnes, James M. (8 P. D., 94) 184 Beatrie, Schmisseur v. (147 111., 210) 48,321 Beaulieu v. Ternoir (5 La. An., 480) 343 Beers, Edmund O. (7 P. D., 113) 475 Beevers, People v. (99 Cal., 286) 145 Bennett, Charles T. (7 P. D., 1) ___ 336 Better v. Better (50 Mich., 51) 83 Bice, William (9 P. D., 21) 12 Page. Bird, Daniel (10 P, D., 105) 167 Bishop, Marriage and Divorce (1, 88, 155, 163) I 444 Bishop, Marriage and Divorce (sec. 283) 119,446 Bishop, Marriage and Divorce (1, 659, 661, 663) — 340 Black, on Judgments (1, sec. 218) 229 Blackburn v. Crawford (3 Wallace, 175) 280 Blanchard v. Lambert et al. (43 Iowa, 228) 66 Blasini et al. v. The Succession of Blasini (30 La. An., 1368) 343 Blitch, Kathrina (11 P. D., 247) ___ 325 Boate, William (9 P. D., 375) 430 Borthwick, Charles F., alias Frank- lin Brown (10 P. D., 249) 10 Bouvier's Institutes (29) 79 Bower et al., Senser et al. v. (1 Pen- rose & Watts Pa., 450) 323 Boyd, Arthur (1 P. D., 105) 193 Boyd, Josephine G. (8 P. D., 1) 495 Briggs, Davie v. (97 U. S., 628) 48, 212, 236, 502 Bronoel, Mary E. (8 P. D., 387) 432 Brown, Alexander (39 Fee P. L. Bk., 315) 494 Brown, Charles F. (3 P. D., 92)__ 301, 460 Brown, Dickerson v. (49 Miss., 373) 268 Brown, Henrietta (3 P. D., 92) __ 301,460 Brown, Minerva (11 P. D., 266) 324 Bruce, Thomas (4 L. B. P., 261)_ 111,164 Buckley, Ex parte (53 Ala., 55) 117 Buckley, Mary C. (8 P. D., 195) ___ 161 Burgess, John A. (9 P. D., 170) 149 Burnham, Martha G. (5 P. D., o. s., 102) 61 Burton, Jennette (9 P. D., 31)____ 66,324 Burton, Spears v. (31 Miss., 555) — 270 Calvert, Floyd v. (53 Miss., 37) 268 Carley, Timothy L. (7 P. D., 12) _ 432,512 Carroll v. Carroll et al. (20 Tex., 731) 66 51 52 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. C'artwright et al. i'. McGown (121 111., 388) 320 Charmbury, Executor of, Powei'S v. (35 La. An., 630) 343 Cheely v. Clayton (110 U. S., 701, 705) 408 Chew Heong v. United States (113 U. S., 559) 79 Childers, Isaac B. (10 P. D., 397) __ 453 Clayton, Cheely v. (110 U. S., 701- 705) 408 Coal Run Coal Company v. Jones (127 111., 379) 321 Coburn, Mary (11 P. D., 43) 324 Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheat., 264) _ 359 Colby, Caroline E. G. (7 P. D., 24 )_ 337 Cole V. Langley (14 La. An., 770) __ 343 Cole, Russell S. (4 P. D., 141)___ 128,136 Collins, alias Crossweight (125 L. B., 82) 380 Comptroller of the Treasury (3 Dec, 568) 410 Compton, Daniel (4 P. D., o. s., 144) 193 Conie, Florence N. (2 P. D., 58) 61 Cook, Thaniel (5 L. B. P., 118) 85 Cooper V. Cooper (17 Mich., 205) 83 Cooper, Emma M. (10 P. D., 434) _ 234, 40!) Cotton, Walton v. (17 How., 355) __ 20 Couch, William C. (8 P. D., 39) 254 Cox, Mary A. (3 P. D., 313) 63,303 Crump V. Morgan (3 Ired. Eq., 91) _ 276 Crawford, Blackburn v. (3 Wall., 175) 280 Crawford, Robert (1 P. D., 153)___ 39 Cummings, William H.(l P. D.,351)_ 61 Curran, John W.(5 P. D., 1) 1 B. Daily, Daniel (4 P. D., 337) 314 Dale, Talbot (8 P. D., o. s., 152) ___ 260 Darling, Elizabeth (mother) (10 I'. D., 244-299) 35,171,249 Daub, Gable's Executor v. (4 Wright, 217) 79 Davie v. Briggs (97 U. S., 628) 48, 212, 236, 502 Davis, Alexander H.(l P. D., o. s., 486) 192 Davis V. Davis (10 P. D., 403) 203 Davis, John (minors of) (9 P. D., 151) 449 Davis, Margaret E. (10 P. D., 403 )_ 50 Davis, Mark (10 P. D., 185) 166 Davis, Tennessee v. (100 U. S., 257) _ 358 Decatur v. Spaulding (14 Peters, 606) 35 Dennert, John (32 Fee P. L. Bk., 199) 26 Dick, Robert M. (3 P. D., 333) 193 Dickerson v. Brown (49 Miss., 373 )_ 268 Dilley, Asa H. (11 P. D., 257) 421 Doe, Nepean r. (dem. Knight, 2 M. & W.. 894) 502 Dolan, Mary E. (11 P. D., 62) 110 Duke, Rives v. (105 U. S., 132) 447 Duryee, Abram (3 P. D., 276). Dyer, David H. (9 P. D., 87) Paga 12 210 E. Earl, Edwin (10 P. D., 176) 265 Eastman, Alexander (8 P. D., 358 )_ 512 Endlich on Interpretation of Stat- utes (par. 271) 79 Ellis, Alphonso W. (11 P. D., 93) 316 Ellis r. Ellis (11 P. D., 288) 523 Emmett, Samuel (3 P. D., 281) 193 Ewing, Richard (8 P. D., 44) 410 F. Featherly, William (9 P. D., 106) __ 179 Fetterly, Jerome B. (10 P. D., 460) _ 28 Floyd r. Calvert (53 Miss., 37) 268 Fox, United States v. (95 U. S., 670) 354 Frank, Francis (9 P. D., 68) 179 Freeman on Judgments (2 ed,, sees. 127-313) 275,495 Frink, Samuel W. (35 Fee P. L. Bk., 139) 150 Fuller V. Fuller (33 Kans., 582) ___ 99 G. Gable's Executor v. Daub (4 Wright, 217) 79 Gaines, Patterson v. (6 How., 550) _ 66 Galpin v. Page (18 Wall. U. S., 350 )_ 233 Gant, John (1 P. D., 118) 61 Garner, Ezra (32 Fee P. L. Bk., 257) ^ 26 Geiger, Helen M. (9 P. D., 28) 164 Gerard, Wesley C. (4 P. D., 51) 61 Germain, Louise C. (11 P. D., 66)' 132,141,324,405 Gibson, Murray v. (15 How., 421 )__ 79 Gilbert, Margaret (8 P. D., 249) ___ 295 Good, George W., minor of (8 P. D., 407) 432 Goodson, William (7 P. D., 294) 393 Gorby, Sarah (4 P. D., 298) 44 Gray i\ Larrimore (2 Abb. U. S., 542) 233 Greenleaf on Evidence (1, sees. 1, 41, 44, 207) 197,199,473,502 Guernsey, Charles F. M. (11 P. D., 64) 136 H. Hagarty, William H. (10 P. D., 359) 163 Hall V. United States (92 U. S., 27) _ 168 Hall, United States v. (98 U. S., 343) 354 Hamilton, Zenas (3 P. D., 3) 61 Hardy, Calista M. (7 P. D., 39)_— 216 Harkins, Thomas S. (IP. D., 459)- 85 Harmon, James A. (129 L. B., 7)— 380 Harris, Lucinda (11 P. D., 181) 446 Harvey v, Tyler (2 Wall., 329) 79 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 53 Page. Haskell, United States v. (4 Wash. C. C, 402) 293 Ilayford, Ira W. (9 P. D., 307) 475 Hedgspeth, William (1 P. D., 245 )_ 136 Ileinriclis, William (10 P. D., 321__ 336 Henry, George L. (8 P. D., 422) 65 Henry, Parton v. (1 Gray, Mass., 119) 120 Hervy, Susan, Thomas J. Parton i\ (67 Mass., 119) 121 Heth, United States v. (3 Cranch, 298, 399, 413) j__ 79 Higgins, Annie (10 P. D., 110) 281 Hill, John H. (7 P, D., 585) 475 Hlnkley v. Ayres (105 Cal., 357)— 145 Hobdy V. Jones (2 La. An., 944) ___ 342 Hoffman, Margaret M. (9 P. D., 227) 55 Hollis, Lucius S. (10 P. D., 414) ___ 453 Holmes v. Holmes (6 La., 463) 66,342 Holtzman, Thomas v. (18 D. C, 62) 280 Hooker, America (8 P. D., 210) 162 Hope, William G. (182 L. B., 400) _ 380 Horton, Stephen (7 P. D., 369) 314 Howard, Lafayette G., Minors of (8 P. D., 230)« 449 Hubbard, Louisville, New Albany and Chicago R. R. Co. v.{llQ Ind., 193) 229 Hubbell et al. v. Inkstein et al. (7 La. An., 252) 342 Hubee, William (20 La. An., 97)___ 342 Hughes, Annie (8 P. D., 455) 168 Hughes, State v. (35 Kans., 626)— 97 Hughes, William H. (9 P. D., 1q2)_ 336 Huff r. Rawles (26 Miss., 471) 66 Hunter, Martin v. (1 Wheat., 363) _ 359 Hunton, William (38 Fee P. L. Bk., 396) 491 Hurst, Albert G. (14 P. D., o. s., 472) ' 39 Ingersoll v. Ingersoll (49 Pa. St., 249) 82 Inkstein et al., Hubbell et al. v. (7 La. An., 252) 342 Instructions (7 P. D., 240) 111,164 Instructions (9 P. D., 93) 39,316 J. Jacobs, George (7 P. D., 39) 509 Jetmore et al., Wiles v. (22 Ohio St., 271) 276 Johnson v. Johnson (114 III., 611)— 321 Johnson, John (9 P. D., 349) 478 Johnson, William H. (34 Fee P. L. Bk.. 245) 493 Johnson, William R. (4 P. D., 167)- 60 Jones, Coal Run Coal Company v. (127 111., 379) 321 Page, Jones, Hobdy v. (2 La. An., 944) __ 342 Jones V. Jones (36 Md., 457) 279 Judd, Shorten v. (60 Kans., 73-277) 97 K. Keeling, Stover v. (3 Hen. and M. (Va.) 288) 116 Kelsor, John S. (7 P. D., 558)— 217,423 Kellogg V. Wait and trustee (12 Allen, Mass., 530) 362 Kelly, Michael (3 P. D., 240) 166 Kendall v. United States (12 Peters, 524) 35 Kent, Fredrlcka (10 P. D., 211) 99 Kllburn v. Kilburn (89 Cal., 46) 145 Kimball, John H. (11 P. D., 124- 136) 254-328 li. Lalone, Margaret (11 P. D., 301 )__ 443 Lambert et al., Blanchard v. (43 Iowa, 228) 66 Lammon, Merrill B. (38 Fee P. L. Bk., 117) — 520 Langley, Cole v. (14 La. An., 770 )_ 343 Larrlmore, Gray v. (2 Abb. U. S. 542) 233 Lessor, George (8 P. D., 114) _ 334, 371, 375 Levan, Daniel Webster (9 P. D., 322) 380 Lewis, Charles G. (4 P. D., 328)— _ 487 Lewis, Rollin (9 P. D., 216) 512 Linn, Matney v. (59 Kans., 613) 97 Longee, Augustus H. (7 P. D., 586) _ 254 Louisville, New Albany and Chicago R. R. Co. V. Hubbard (116 Ind., 193) 229 Lyons, Emily J. (261 L. B., 288) 23 M. McCabe, Roslinda (5 L. B. P., 273) _ 61 McCarty, Respublica v. (2 Dallas, Pa., 86) 293 McColIom, Mary B. (6 P. D., 93) __ 320 McCorkle, Robert (7 P. D., 158) 393 McCoy, John R. (5 P. D., 369) 136 McCuIIum, Abram (6 P. D., o. s., Ill) 166 McFarland, State v. (38 Kans., 664) 97 McGown, Cartwrlght et al. v. (121 III., 388) 320 McReary, Stevenson's Heirs v. (20 Miss., 56) 269 Manley, Randolph M. (5 P. D., 295)_ 12 Marker v. Marker (11 N. J. L., 257) 83 Maroney, Vance v. (4 Colo., 47-49) _ 409 Marshall, Albert (5 P. D., 226) 166 Martin v. Hunter (1 Wheat., 363)— 359 Martin, Jackson (7 P. D., 265)— 265, 300 Martin, John (7 P. D., 578) 346 Mason, Harrison H. (4 P. D., 244) __ 300 Matney v. Linn (59 Kans., 613) 97 « Overruled In case of Minors of James Still (12 P, P.), 54 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Maxwell on Interpretation of Stat- utes (p. 191) 79 May, Christian (8 P. D., 71) 401 Meister v. Moore (96 U. S., 76) 280 Meister v. Moore (96 IT. S. Reports, 78) 119 Meyer, William W. (3 P. D., 246) __ 85 Milford V. Worcester (7 Mass., 48) _ 120 Miller, John S. (7 P. D., 347) 172 Mitchell, Taylor v. (57 Pa. St., 211) 79 Montgomery, Rudolph M. (3 P. D., 41) 314 Moore, Edward W. (8 P. D., 400; 9 P. D., 55) 353 Moore, Meister r. (96 XL S., 76) 280 Moore, Meister v. (96 U. S. Reports, 78) 119 Moore, Spencer v. (11 Ired., N. C, 160) 502 Morgan, Crump v. (3 Ired. Eq., 91 )_ 276 Morris, Ellie (9 P. D., 353) 479 Morris, Walter (9 P. D., 462) 12 Moyer, Reuben (13 P. D., o. s., 577) 85 Muckenstorm, .Toseph (10 P. D., 61) 457 Murray v. Gibson (15 How., 421) __ 79 Murray v. Murray (6 Or., 26) 427 N. Nepean v. Doe (dem. Knight, 2 M. & W., 894) 502 Newcomb, Julia (5 P. D., 419) 520 Newman, Henry (8 P. D., 532) 61 Newman, Robert (6 P. D., o. s., 228) 61 Niedhammer, Alma (8 P. D., 276) __ 302 Norman v. Thompson (121 Cal., 620) 145 Norton, John (9 P. D., 382) 195, 240, 245, 333, 363, 375 O. Orr, Mary C. (10 P. D., 348) 132 Ousterhout Milo B. (7 P. D., 270) _ 64, 124, 132, 136, 254 P. Page, Galpin v. (18 Wall., U. S., 350) 233 Parsons on Contracts (1 p. 145) 117 Parton v. Henry (1 Gray, Mass., 119) 120 Parton, Thomas J., v. Susan Hervy (67 Mass., 119) 121 Patterson v. Gaines (6 Howard, 550) 66 Paul V. Willis (69 Tex., 261) 229 Pedrotti, Rosa (35 Fee P. L. Bk., 231) 172 Pegram, Bundle v. (49 Miss., 75) 340 People V. Beevers (99 Cal., 286) 145 People, Snyder v. (26 Mich., 108)— 298 Pepper, Helen L. (9 P. D., 500) 237 Peters, Galen (9 P. D., 102) 512 Pike, William H. (IP. D., 253)— 193 Page. Poland, Elizabeth H. (8 P. D., 266) 200 Potter's Dwarris on Statutes and Con. (74-162) 79 Potter, Joseph M. (3 P. D., 82) 314 Powell V. Powell (53 Ind., 513) ___ 232 Powell V. Powell (27 Miss., 785) ___ 270 Powers r. Executors of Charmbury (35 La. An., 630) , 343 Predmore, Byron A. (8 P. D., 165 )_ 349 Pruitt, John (9 P. D., o. s., 295) ___ 61 Pulver, Jonas W. (10 P. D., 227)— 40 Q. Quinn, John (11 P. D., 25) 423 R. Rainey, James H. (8 P. D., 77)— _ 65,254 Ransom, Albert K. (5 P. D., 183)— 391 Radcliffe, Kathryne A. (11 P. D., 171) 249,325 Rathton, Nancy (9 P. D., 162) 391 Rawles, Hull v. (26 Miss., 471) 66 Reidy, Ellas W. (7 P. D., 132) 193 Remick, Alfred P. (3 P. D., 131 )__ 193 Respublica t\ McCarty (2 Dallas, Pa., 86) 293 Reynolds, Mary A. (8 P. D., 287)— 161 Richards v. Richards (11 P. D., 90)_ 377 Rieckoff, Ernst (8 P. D., 324) 432 Rives V. Duke (105 U. S., 132) 447 Rohn, Preston M. (10 P. D., 72)___ 512 Roper, Spencer v. (13 Ired., 333) __ 502 Rose V. Rose (50 Mich., 92) 83 Rothery, Mary Ann, t;. Henry N. Rothery (11 P. D., 77) 90 Rothery, Henry N. (11 P. D., 255) __ 377 Rothery v. Rothery (11 P. D., 77)— 377 Ruffino (116 Cal., 304) 145 Ruhl, John H. (8 P. D., 351) ■- 487 Bundle v. Pegram (49 Miss., 75) _— 340 Salisbury, Lavanchia L. (7 P. D., 247) 212 Salmon, Michael (3 L. B. P., 9)__ 111, 164 Sarver, Barnabas (9 P. D., 294) ___ 254 Schmisseur v. Beatrie (147 111., 210) 48, 321 Scott, Nancy E. (6 P. D., 185) 495 Seaman, Benjamin W. (9 P. D., o. s., 8) 61 Sedgwick on Con. Stat, and Consti- tutional Law (pp. 160-161) 79 Senser et al. v. Bower et al. (1 Pen- rose & Watts, Pa., 450) 323 Shaffer, James (5 P. D., 6) 314 Shannon, Andrew J. (7 P. D., 64)__ 184 Sharer, David S. (9 P. D., 189) 432 Sharon v. Sharon (79 Cal., 633) 145 Sharpe, Marie (8 P. D., 175) 44 Shattuck, Joseph (7 P. D., 54) 220 Shipp, Annie M. (11 P. D., 226). 408,495 Shorten v, Judd (60 Kans., 73) 97 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 55 Page. Shuttleworth, Minnie (3 P. D., 50) _ 301 Sickles, Caroline (6 P. D., 164) 44 Simmons, Andrew r. (68 Miss., 732) 340 Smith, Joseph P. (7 P. D., 11) 509 Snyder r. People (26 Mich., 108) __ 298 Spaulding, Decatur v. (14 Peters, 606) 35 Spears v. Burton (31 Miss., 555)— 270 Spencer, John (7 P. D., 152). 410 Spencer v. Moore (11 Ired., N. C, 160) 502 Spencer v. Roper (13 Ired., 333) 502 Splcer t\ Spicer (16 Abb. Prac. Repts.) 212 Spires, .Jacob C. (31 Fee P. L. Bk., 480) 430 State V. Hughes (35 Kans., 626) ___ 97 State of Iowa v. Waite (81 Fed. Rep., 359) 357 State r. McFarland (38 Kans., 664) 97 State r. Walker (36 Kans., 297)— 97 Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary (20 Miss., 56) 269 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sees. 10, 74, 125, 147, 429) 74, 76, 82, 160, 168 Stine, Jasper M. (9 P. D., 488) 194, 240, 287 Stocker, Mary J. (9 P. D., 506) 161 Stockwell, Sarah O. (10 P. D., 428) _ 249, 326, 515 Stone, Charles (8 P. D., 477) 179 Story, Equity Jurisprudence (1, c. 6) 202 Stover V. Keeling (3 Hen. and M. (Va.), 288) 116 Stranahan, Andrew (5 P. D., 199) _ 300 Sullivan, John (10 P. D., 55)___ 370,373 Sutherland on Con. Stat. (pars. 71, 72, 107, 160, 206) 79 Sutherland on Stat. Con. (sees. 211, 283, 288, 309) 382,433 Swett, Taylor v. (3 La., 33) 342 T. Taylor v. Mitchell (57 Pa. St., 211) _ 79 Taylor v. Swett (3 La., 33) 342 Teeter, Edward H. (22 Fee P. L. Bk., 438) 430 Teller, United States v. (107 U. S., 64) 20 Tennessee v. Davis (100 U. S., 257) 358 Ternoir, Beaulieu v. (5 La., An., 480) 343 Thomas r. Iloltzman (18 D. C, 62 )_ 280 Thomas, Margaret L. (9 P. D., 139) _ 99 Thompson, Jennett (7 P. D., 264) __ 79 Thompson, Stephen (7 P. D., 26)— 332 Thomson, Norman v. (121 Cal., 620) 145 Threet, .Tames (9 P. D., 297) 144 Tinnin, Harriet (8 P, D., 218). _- 341,446 Page. Todd, Granville (3 P. D., 383) 497 Trask, Napoleon B. (9 P. D., 113) __ 63 Trosper, James A. (8 P. D., 75) 401 Tyler, Harvey v. (2 Wall., 329) 79 Tyler v. Tyler (171 Mass., 150) 117 U. United States v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company (142 U. S., 615-621) 79 United States, Chew Heong v. (113 U. S., 559) 79 United States v. Fox (95 U. S., 670) 354 United States, Hall v. (92 U. S., 27) 168 United States v. Hall (98 U. S., 343) 354 United States v. Haskell (4 Wash. C. C, 402) 293 United States v. Heth (3 Cranch, 298, 399, 413) L 79 United States, Kendall v. (12 Peters, 524) 35 United States v. Teller (107 U. S., 64) 20 Vance v. Maroney (4 Colorado, 47- 49) 409 Virginia, Cohens r. (6 Wheat, 264) _ 359 Von Ottendorf, Peter N. F. (3 P. D., 341) 85 W. Wait and Trustee, Kellogg v. (12 Al- len (Mass.), 530) 362 Waite, State of Iowa v. (81 Fed. Rep., 359) 357 Walker, State v. (36 Kan., 297) 97 Walton V. Cotton (17 How., 355) ___ 20 Weightman v. Weightman (4 Johns, ch. 343) 276 White, Job (7 P. D., 312) 243 White V. White (8^ Cal., 427) 145 Wilcox, Charles (1 P. D., 11) 61 Wiles V. Jetmore et al. (22 Ohio St., 271) 276 Willis Paul V. (69 Tex., 261) 229 Wilson, William (10 P. D., 232) ___ 243 Winkler Zachariah (9 P. D., 172) __ 380 Worcester, Milford r. (7 Mass., 48) _ 120 Worrell, Benjamin F. (6 P. D., o. s., 309) 61 Wyche v. Wyche (5 Martin, La., 201) 342 Y. Yates, Lizzie (10 P. D., 446) 103 Young, Elizabeth (9 P. D., 44) 24, 164 56 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. United States Statutes at Large. 177G, 1790, 1798, 1799, 1802, 1811, 1814, 1862, 1862, 1864, 1867, 1870, 1879, 1882. 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1886, 1887, 1889, 1890, Page. January 17, military age 194 April 30, military age 194 July 16, marine hospital 415 March 2, marine and navy hos- pitals 415 March 16 (sec. 11) 194 February 26, navy hospitals 415 December 10, military age 241 February 13, military age 288 July 14, commencement 18 July 4, military age 194 March 2, special act 414 July 8 (sec. 4766, R. S.), pen- sion money 416 March 3, commencement — mother 18 July 25 : (Sec. 5) double pensions 414 Expert examination 348 August 7 : Marriage 48,214,277 Minor's claim 449 March 3, amputation 3 July 4 : (Sees. 3 and 4) attorneys- 50 (Sec. 4) fee agreements- 203,521 March 3, amputation — increase 4 March 19 : Increase — mother 20 Rate — mothers — rank 36 August 4, amputation 1 January 29 : Mexican war pensions 22 Remarriage — restoration 338 Service 163,218 March 2 (sec. 3), desertion, re- moval of charge 17 June 27 : Act August 7, 1882, and sec. 4706, R. S 449 (Sec. 2), age — disability __ 179 Amendatory declaration 490 (Sec. 3), commencement 162 Commencement — minors. 431, 510 (Sec. 1), construed — mothers 36 Declarations — filing 315, 420 (Sec. 1), dependent parents 247 Desertion — discharge 13 (Sec. 2), disability 38 1890, June 27 — Continued. Page. Disloyalty — accrued pen- sion 243 Election — no benefit 455 (Sec. 1), fee— appeal— 325,514 Honorable discharge 440 Increase, act of 1890 451 (Sec. 3), marriage and di- vorce 73,488 (Sec. 3), minor's pension-- 448 Mothers — rate 34 Practice 455 Rate— reduction—oedema- 336, 505 Rejected recruit 390 Section 4702, R. S 450 Section 4707, R. S 171 Service 206 Service — absence 435 Service — Beaty's Scouts 141 (Sec. 2), service — board of enrollment 183 1891, March 3, fee— increase 508 1892, July 14 : Aid and attendance 477 Commencement — increase - 503 1892, July 27, service — Indian wars- 177 1893, January 5 : Commencement 380 Increase under act 1887 22 1893, December 21, pension — vested right — notice 80 1895, March 2: Accrued pension 49 Distribution 352 1896, March 6 : Commencement 511 'Practice 122 1896, March 13 : Death — presumption 197 Presumption of death 48 1898, May 4, Naval Home 416 1899, March 3 : Construed — retroactive laws 77 Division of pension 260, 288 Division of pension — re- payment 255 Divorce — jurisdiction 494 Evidence — division of pen- sion 377 Fee — accrued pension 50 Naval Home — fund 416 Notice— evidence 523,524 Retroactive laws — division. 90 Sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Page. 1116. Military age 194 4693. Invalid pension — title 19 4693. Service — wagon master 285 4695. Rate 35 Page. 4696. Rank and rate 19, 486 4702. Widows 426 4702. Widow's pension 424 4705. Marriage of colored persons. 181, 446 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 57 Page. 4706. Minor's claim 449 4707. Act June 27, 1890 — dependent parents 171 4707. Dependent parents — war with Spain 247,514 4707. Fee— appeal 325 4707 and June 27, 1890. Fee — lim- itation 171 4707. Rank — dependent mother 18 4707. Rate 35 4708. Remarriage 338 4713. Commencement 384 4713 and 4730. Commencement !___ 176 4715. Election 456 4715. Navy pensions 415 4716. Accrued pensions 241 4716. Disloyalty — conscription 252 4716. Disloyalty — evidence 64, 124 4716. Disloyalty — evidence — pre- sumption 136 Page. 4716. Duress — Line of duty 290 4716. Record — evidence 327 4718. Pending claim — accrued pen- sion 259 4720. Commencement — special act 426 4730 and 4713. Mexican war — com- mencement 175 4734. Pension money, withholding 80 4745. Pension money — -assignment 80 4747. Pension money — seizure 80 4756. Navy pensions 410, 412 4757. Navy pensions 410 4766. Guardians 352 4766.' Payment of pension 412, 416 4766. Pension fund — payment 353 4783. Guardians 353 4786. Fee agreements 203 4813. Navy pensions 410 5486. Guardians ^ 353 State Statutes. Page. California Laws (March 26, 1895), sees. 55, 57, 70, 75, 77, 78, mar- riage 144 Georgia Code (1882), sees. 3594 and 3828— jurisdiction 229 Indiana Revised Statutes : Sec. 1051, divorce — decree 227 Sec. 1055, summons — service 228 Sec. 1056, nonresident — service- 228 Iowa Code : (1873) sees. 2223 and 2231, marriage 74 (1897) sees. 3175 and 3182, marriage 74 Maryland Code : (1777) ch. 12, sec. 11, marriage of colored persons 279 (1777) ch. 62, sec. 13, marriage of colored persons 280 (February 6, 1879) legitimacy — colored persons 281 Page. Massachusetts : (May 29, 1895) marriage 116 (June 5, 1896) marriage 116 Michigan, Howard on Stats., sec. 6295, wife's right to property 297 Missouri, Code of Civil Procedure, sees. 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, in- terlocutory decree 500 New York, sec. 6, ch. 8, art. 1, p. 2332, marriage 214 Oregon, Code of 1872, Title- VII, par. 766, evidence — marriage 428 Virginia Code : (February 27, 1866) marriage of colored persons 167 (1873) pp. 843 and 844, ch. 105, sec. 7, marriage 445 PENSION DECISIONS— VOLUME 12. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Vnge. A. Adams, Elizabetn (12 P. D., 312) ___ 349 Adams, The State v. (65 N. C, 537) 288 American Decisions (88, p. 500) 12 American and Engiisli Encyclopedia (1, p. 28) 39 American Criminal Law (1, sec. 163) 150 American and English Encyclopedia of Law (1, p. 417) 118 American and English Encyclopedia of Law (3, p. 600) 484 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, 2d ed. (9, 767, 775, and note) 12, 56, 58, 365 American and English Encyclopedia of Law (14, p. 518) 438 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, 2d ed. (15, p. 875, f. and note 1, p. 146) 339 American Cyclopedia of Law (17, note 2, p. 396) 133 American Life Insurance Company, Hancock v. (62 Mo., 26) _'_ 112 Anderson, Ellen (6 P. D., 197) 147 Anderson, Margaret J. (4 P. D., 67) 137,278 Andrews r. Page (3 Heisk., 667) ___ 469 Archambault, Syprian (6 P. D.. 240) 81 Atherton v. Atherton (82 Hun, n., 179) 304 Attorney-General (3 P. D., 430) 407 Attorney-General (20 Op., 322) 389 B. Bahb, Isaac W., alias John Dunlap (8 P. D., 59) 51 Bachman, Batchelor E. (7 P. D., 249) 478 Bainbridge, United States v. (1 Ma- son, 81) 81 Baker, Frank M., People of the State of New York v. (76 N. Y., 78) 305 Baltzer, George (10 P. D., 37) 17 Banks, Griffin v. (24 How., 215) 311 Barker, Mary P. (8 P. D., 48) 517 Barleyoung, John (7 P. D., 453) 186 Barnes et al.. Long v. (87 N. C, 329) 289 Page. Beates and Another, Miller et al. v. (3 Serg. & R., Pa., 490) 280 Beatrie, Schmisseur r. (147 111., 210) 183,328 Beckwith, Fisher v. (30 Wis., 55) __ 362 Beers, Edmund O. (7 P. I)., 113) _ 215, 244 Beller r. Beller (50 Mich., 51) 12 Bcrnsteine, Adolph (7 P. D., 229) __ 408 Berry, Margaret A. (7 P. D., o. s., 164) 460 Beswick (25 How., Pr., 151) 81 Bice, William (9 P. D., 21) 525 Binghampton Bridge Case (3 Wall., 51) 403 Bishop V. Bishop (30 Pa. St., 412) __ 416 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce (pars. 169, 951) 11, 350 Blackburn v. Crawfords (3 Wall., 175) 469 Blake, Daniel (3 P. D., 27) 265 Blasini et al. v. The Succession of Blasini (30 La. An., 1368) 384 Boardm'an, Henry S. (3 P. D., 44) __ 55 Bonner, William (1 P. D., 346) 265 Borden v. Fitch (15 John., ch., 141) _ 306 Bordine, Benj. M. (13 P. D., o. s., 335) 264 Bower, Senser v. (1 P. and W., 450) _ 282 Bowers, Brower v. (1 Abb. Ct. App., 214) 309 Bragunier, Elizabeth (9 P. D., o. s., 250) 146 Bradley v. Bradley (4 Whar., 173)__ 282 Briggs, Davie v. (97 U. S., 628) _ 112, 209, 282 Brooks, William J. (2 P. D., 269) ___ 264 Brown v. Brown (66 Maine, 316) ___ 362 Brown, Minerva (11 P. D., 266) __ 297,421 Browne on Domestic Relations (p. 12) 484 Brownlee, Wilson v. (24 Ark., 586) _ 102 Brower v. Bowers (1 Abb. Ct. App., 214) 309 Bruner, Bernard (3 P. D., 228) 464 Buchanan, Sarah (10 P. D., 423) _ 314,335 Buckley, Mary C. (8 P. D., 195) 297 Bundy, James (1 P. D., 356) 264 58 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 59 Page. BurgOyne, Annie B. (12 P. D., 182) _ 421 Burns, Patrick II. (11 V. D., 332, 362) 382,392,450 Burr V. Sim (4 Whar., 149) 282 Burton, Jennette (9 P. D., 31) 297, 308, 335, 350 Butler, Jeremiali (7 P. D., 214) 186 C. Caldwell, James (9 P. D., 486) 325 Calvert, Carpenter v. (83 111., 62) __ 324 Camel, McCartee v. (1 Barb., N. Y., ch. 455) 112 Campbell, Innis v. (1 Rawl., 372) __ 282 Carley, Timothy L. (7 P. D., 12)___ 17 Carpenter v. Calvert (83 111., 62)___ 324 Carroll v. Carroll (16 How., 275- 287) 483 Cartwright et al. v. McGown (121 111., 388) 326,482 Caton, James (6 P. D., 159) 244 Caujolle V. Ferrie (23 N. Y., 90)___ 38 Chapman v. Cooper (5 Rich., S. C, 452) 285 Chase, Ransom J. (11 P. D., 483) __ 265 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (5 Pet., 1) ^_ 519 Claise, John Bois, widow of (1 P. D., o. s., 13) 86 Clark, Cassandra F. (8 P. D., 235)__ 476 Clark V. Cox (32 Mich., 204, 211, 212) 339 Claw, Jackson v. (18 Johns., 346) __ 37 Cleveland, Hunt v. (6 Pa. C. C, 592) _ 301 Coburn, Mary (11 P. D., 43) 297 Code of Tennessee (sec. 3293) 469 Cohen v. The State of Virginia (6 Wheat., 264-399) 483 Colby, Rowland A. (7 P. D., ^) 213 Colderan, William S. (4 P. D., 418 )_ 87 Colgln, Susan (5 P. D., 127) 82 Collins, Hiram (12 P. D., 361) 473 Commissioner of Pensions (11 P. D., 351) 3 Commissioner of Pensions, by Secre- tary Bussey (4 P. D., 225) 82 Comstock, Harriet (10 P. D., 220) __ 137 Conaty, Thomas G. (6 P. D., 238) __ 250 Conklin, Philip J. (10 P. D., 368) __ 366 Conover v. Conover (11 P. D., 524) _ 44, 157 Cook, Cassilly C. (12 P. D., 188) __ 254 Cook, Nathaniel (5 L. B. P., 118) __ 264 Coolidge, United States v. (1 Wheat., 415) 150 Cooper V. Cooper (12 P. D., 163) _ 238,376 Cooper V. Cooper (17 Mich., £05)— 12 Cooper, Chapman v. (5 Rich., S. C, 452) 285 Cooper, Warwick r. (5 Sneed, 659)_ 469 Cotton, Walton v. (19 How., 355) __ 32 Cowen, Franklin S. (7 P. D., 374) __ 187 Cox, Clark v. (32 Mich., 204, 211, 212) .339 Crawfords, Blackburn v. (3 Wallace, 175) 469 Crider, Malinda L. (7 P. D., 462__. Croft, Sarah (1 P. D., 279) Croft, Simon v. (182 U. S., 427) __. Cropsey r. McKinney (30 Barb., 47). Cullen, James (6 P. D., 72) Cummings, William H. (1 P. D. 351) Page. 284 146 158 309 82 146 Darling, Elizabeth (10 P. D., 244) __ 509 Darrow v. Harrow (150 Mass., 262) _ 447 Davie v. Briggs (97 U. S., 628) 112, 209, 284 Davis V. Davis (2 Del. N. Y., 549) __ 305 Davis V. Davis (10 P. D., 403, 409 )_ 31, 222 Davis, Edwards v. (16 Johns, N. Y., 281) 363 Davis, Fox v. (113 Mass., 255) 447 Davis, Margaret E. (10 P. D., 403) _ 6 Davis, William N. (7 P. D., 333) __ 504 Dawson v. Dawson (12 Iowa, 512) _ 363 Deflfenbaugh, Anthony W. (5 P. D., 246) 56 Dies, John (457 L. B., 262) 224 Dixon V. The People (18 Mich., 84) 285,349 Dodge, Miller v. (28 N. Y. Misc., 238) 341 Dolan, Mary E. (11 P. D., 62) 445 Dorlas, Nancy J. (5 P. D., 230) 279 Douglas, George W., minors of (11 P. D., 448) 28 Drake, George W. (9 P. D., 273) ___ 227 Dunlap, Robert G., alias Durdass (5 P. D., 52) 43 Durkee, James J. (8 P. D., 152) 17 Dyer, David H. (9 P. D., 87) 466,503 Edgerly v. Edgerly (112 Mass., 53 )_ 447 Edwards i\ Davis (16 Johns. N. Y., 28) 363 Eibel, Kate (7 P. D., 179) 82 Eisenlohr, O'Gara v. (38 N. Y., 296) _ 38 Ellason, Mary (3 P. D., 100) 147 Ellis, Alphouso W. (11 P. D., 93) _^ 56 Ellis, Eliza J. (12 P. D., 159)___ 450,477 Ellis V. Ellis (11 P. D., 288) 44, 157, 238, 263,336 Estell t\ Rogers (1 Bush. Ky., 62) 440,449 Ewing, Richard (8 P. D., 44) 166 F. Fairbanks v. Metcalf (8 Mass., 230) _ 362 Feilen, People v. (58 Cal., 218) ___ 285 Fenton v. Reed (4 Johns., 51) 37 Ferrie, Caujolle r. (23 N. Y., 90) __ 38 Filones, Christopher, Mary A. Filones V. (12 P. D., 237) 373 Filones, Mary A., v. Christopher Filones (12 P. D., 237) 373 Finley, William (11 P. D., 410) ___ 166 Fisher v. Beckwith (30 Wis., 55)— 362 60 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Fitch, Borden r. (15 John. Ch., 141) , 306 Fleagle v. Fleagle (12 P. D., 57)__- 365 Fleck, George W. (7 P. D., 343) __ 277, 504 Fordham, Charles F., v. Gouverneur Village (vol. 5, app. div., 565, su- preme court of New York) 39 Fox V. Davis (113 Mass., 255) 447 Frisbie v. United States (157 U. S., 166) 32,111 Fuller, Sallie A. (10 P. D., 238) ___ 137 G. Gaines v. New Orleans (6 Wall., 642) 350 Gaines, Patterson v. (6 How., 550) _ 41 Gall V. Gall (114 N. Y., 109) _ 310, 341, 516 Gates V. Houston, (3 Tex., 433) ___ 285 George, Harrison B. (decided Jan. 6, 1898, L. B. 263, p. 416) 215 Georgia, Cherokee Nation v. (5 Pet., 1) 519 Georgia, Worcester v. (5 Pet., 515) _ 519 Germain, Louise C. (11 P. D., 66) 279,308,351 Gilbert, Belle (7 P. D., 239) 43 Gilbert, Margaret (8 P. D., 249) 514 Gillespie, Alexander (2 P. D., 16) __ 433 Giulbeau, Younge v. (3 Wall., 641 )_ 362 Gleason v. Gleason (4 Wis., 64) 416 Gordon v. Gordon (141 111., 160) ___ 328 Gore, Mills v. (20 Pick., 28) 362 Gouverneur Village, Chas. F. Ford- ham V. (vol. 5, app. div., 565, su- preme court of New York) 39 Graham, Strader v. (10 How. U. S., 82) 483 Graves v. Graves (108 Mass., 314) _ 447 Greenleaf on Evidence (1, pars. 41, 545) 112,484 Greenleaf on Evidence (sees. 101, 108) 308 Griffin v. Banks (24 How., 215) 311 Guy, William M. (7 P. D., 484) 409 H. Hackley v. Headley (4 Mich., 569- 574) 58 Hadlock v. Hadlock (22 III., 388) __ 362 Halbrook v. State (34 Ark., 511)___ 104 Halfhill, Elizabeth J. (8 P. D., 467) 82 Hall, United States v. (98 U. S., 343) 148 Hamilton, Zenas (3 P. D,, 3)___ 433 Hancock t\ American Life Ins. Co. (62 Mo., 26) 112 Hankinson, Obediah P. (7 P. D., 227, and 9 P. D., 292) 409 Hardenl^erger r. Hardenberger (14 Cal., 054) 416 Harding, James (2 P. D., 232) 433 Harnden, Margarette E. (12 P. D., 278) - __ 350 Page. Harrington, Harvey (12 P. D., 109)- 442 Haskins, Edwin (8 P. D., 40) 43 Hauenstein, Daniel (7 P. D., 256) __ 526 Hautz V. Sealey (6 Blnn., 405) 301 Hawkins, Lettie (8 P. D., 22) 160 Hawkins, Sarah J. (10 P. D., 370) _ 465 Hayden, Sarah C. (8 P. D., 364) ___ 301 Hayes, James A. (7 P. D., 190) 362 Ilayford, Ira W. (9 P. D., 307) 219 Headley, Hackley r. (4 Mich., 569- 574) 58 Height, James, minor of (8 P. D., 469) 513 Hetherington, Aura (10 P. D., 355) _ 82, 138 Hicks, James L. (8 P. D., 518) 390 Hill, George W. (7 P. D., 235-236) _ 277, 409, 503 Hill, John J. (7 P. D., 142) ^_ 215,244 Hitner's appeal (54 Pa., 110) 57 Hodgman, Eliza (11 P. D., 18) 32 Hoepfner, Louisa S. (9 P. D.,497)_ 137,279 Hoffman v. Hoffman (46 N. Y., 30) _ 306 Holmes v. Holmes (6 La., 463) 384 Holmes et al. v. Johnson (42 Pa. St., 159) 282 Ilolyoke Co. v. Lyman (15 Wall., 500) 403 Hooker, America (8 P. D., 210) __ 297,421 Houston, Gates v. (3 Tex., 433) 285 Houston V. Moore (5 Wheat., 37)— 390 Houston, Yates v. (3 Tex., 433) ___ 315 Howard, Lafayette G., minor of (8 P. D., 230) 25 Hudson, United States v. (7 Cranch, 32) 150 Hull V. Rawls (27 Miss., 471) 285 Hunt r. Cleveland (6 Pa. C. C, 592) 301 HutchinsiJ. Kimmel (31 Mich., 126) _ 483 Hynes, Tljomas (5 P. D., 52) 43 Ingersoll v. Ingersoll (49 Pa. St., 249) 12,507 Innis v. Campbell (1 Rawl., 372) ___ 282 In i-e Culver's estate (7 Kulp Pa., 219) 302 In re Grimley (137 U. S., 152) 502 In re House (40 St. Rep. N. Y., 286) _ 305 Instructions to Commissioner of Pen- sions (7 P. D., 240) 186 Instructions to Commissioner of Pen- Pensions (11 P. D., 12) 525 .Jackson v. Claw (18 Johns., 346)__ 37 Jackson v. Jackson (1 John. Ch., 425) 306 Jackson, Perry, widow of (6 P. D., 230) 87 Jackson v. Winne (7 Wend. N. Y., 47) 438 Jewell V. Jewell (1 How., 219) 308 John V. Johnson (1 Cold., 630) 469 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 61 Page. Johnson, John v. (1 Cold., 630) 469 Johnson v. Johnson's administrators (30 Mo., 72-77 Am. Dec, 298)— 519 Johnson, Holmes et al. v. (42 Pa. St., 159) 282 Johnson v. Johnson (114 111., 611)— 285 Johnson, United States i;. (124 U. S., 253) 277,504 Johnson, William (9 P. D., 452) ___ 367 Johnson, William R. (4 P. D., 167) _ 433 Johnson's administrators, Johnson v. (30 Mo., 72-77 Am. Dec, 298) ___ 519 Jones, Catharine (7 L. B. P., 284) _ 86 Jones, Ruth (3 P. D., 279) 133 Jones 17. Zoller (29 Hun, 551) 310 K. Kelly's heirs v. McGuire et al. (15 Ark., 605) 102 Kent (2, p. 146) 339 Kent, Fredricka (10 P. D., 211) ___ 315 Kerr r. Kerr (41 N. Y., 272) 305 Kimball, John H. (11 P. D., 124) __ 15 Kimmel, Hutchins v. (31 Mich., 126) 483 Kinnier v. Kinnier (45 N. Y., 535) _ 306 Kirby, James A. (10 Fee P. L. Bk., 98) 241 K. of P., Wiggin v. (31 Fed. Rep., 125) 165 Koch, United States v. (21 Fed. Rep., 873) 32 ^' Laughlln, John (9 P. D., 466) 351 Laws, Panter, heirs of (2 P. D., o. s., 291) 184 Lessor, George (8 P. D., 114) 81 Lockhart v. White (18 Tex., 102) __ 350 Loeb, Nathan, ^lias Nathan Lyons (11 P. D., 286) 138 Long V. Barnes et al. (87 N. C, 329) 289 Longee, Augustus H. (7 P. D., 586 )_ 15,47 Loughry v. Loughry (11 P. D., 523) _ 44, 157, 376 Loughry, Loughry v. (11 P. D.,523)_ 44, 157, 376 Lowe, White v. 1 Redf., 376) 311 Lumley, Rice v. (10 Ohio St., 155) 314,349 Lyman, Holyoke Co. v. (15 Wall., 500) 403 M. McCartee v. Camel (1 Barb. N. Y., ch. 455) 112 McCollum, Mary B. (6 P. D., 93) 330, 483, 484 McGhee, Morgan v. (5 Hemph. Tenn., 14) 520 McGiffert v. McGiflfert (31 Barb. N. Y, 69) 300 Page. McGown, Cartwright et al. v. (121 111., 388) _ 326,482 McGuire et al., Kelly's heirs v. (15 Ark., 605) 102 Mcintosh, Eppenetus (10 P. D., 172) 244 McKinney, Cropsey v. (30 Barb, 47 > 309 McMahon, Jane (L. B., No. 178, p. 151) 183 McReynolds v. The State of Tennes- see (5 Cold., 20) 514 Manley, Randolph M. (5 P. D., 295) _ 385, 503, 525 Marker v. Marker (11 N. J. L., 257) 12 Markwood, Robert (11 P. D., 380)__ 223, 375, 526 Martin, Alexander (4 P. D., 378) __ 296 Martin v. Mott (12 Wheat., 19) 289 Martin v. Waddell (6 Pet, 367) 403 Mayhugh, Rosenthal v. (33 Ohio St., 165) 314,349 Meeker, John H. (10 P. D., 182) 351 Meister v. Moore (96 U. S., 76) 469, 483, 519 Melton, State v. (120 N. C, 591 )__ 289 Melvin, Daniel V. (8 P. D., 89) 146 Merritt, Maria (10 P. D., 157) ___ 160,448 Metcalf, Fairbanks. i\ (8 Mass., 230) 362 Millard v. Millard (12 P. D., 262) __ 336 Miller et al v. Beates and another (3 Serg. & R.,Pa., 490) 280 Miller v. Dodge (28 N. Y., Misc, 238) 341 Miller, James W. (8 P. D., 416) 326 Mills V. Gore (20 Pick., 28) 362 Mills V. St. Clair Co. (8 How., 581)_ 403 Mofleatt V. Moffatt (5 Cal., 281)___ 416 Monthony, Stephen F. (11 P. D., 193) 82,138 Moore, Edward W. (9 P. D., 55)___ 4 Moore, Houston v. (5 Wheat., 37) __ 390 Moore, Meister v. (96 U. S., 76)___ 469, 483,519 Moore v. Moore (102 Tenn., 148) __ 469 Moore, William (12 P. D., 87) 92 Moors V. Moors (121 Mass., 232) 447 Morgan v. McGhee (5 Hemph. Tenn., 14) 520 Morris, Elwood (9 P. D., 353) 367 Morris, Walter (9 P. D., 462) 525 Mott, Martin v. (12 Wheat., 19) ___ 389 Munsell, Mary (9 P. D., 30) 499 Myers, Felix (11 P. D., 315) 56 N. Napier, Edward E. (11 P. D., 240). 82, 138 Nash, De Witt C. (10 P. D., 141) __ 82 Neff, Pennoyer v. (95 U. S., 722) ___ 483 New Orleans, Gaines v. (6 Wall., 642) 350 Noble, Charles H. (6 P. D., 268) ___ 264 North, United States v. (112 U. S., 510) __ 385 62 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. . Page. Norton, John (9 P. D., 382) 253. 326, 379, 392, 450 Notman, Annie (11 P. D., 212) 350 O. O'Brien, Nora (12 P, D., 32) 308,351 O'Gara v. Eisenlohr (38 N. Y., 296) _ 38 Oliver v. Piatt (3 Howard, 333) 514 Opinions in submitted cases (p. 265) 44 Ordway, Albert (4 P. D., 90) 56 Orr, Mary C. (10 P. D., p. 348) 439 Ott, Cattierlne (4 P. D., 47) 146 Pacific, etc., Ins. Co., Sensendefer i'. (19 Fed. Rep., 68) 285 Page, Andrews v. (3 Heisli., 667) 469 Palmer, Ellen A. (7 P. D., 363) 136 Palmer, Esther A. (11 P. D., 320) __ 297, 350, 420 Parker, William H. (8 P. D., 198) __ 478 Patterson, Francis A. (12 P. D., 29) 111 Patterson v. Gaines (6 How., 550) _ 519 Payne, Wilkinson v. (4 Term. Rep., 468) 469 Pearson, Ellen (5 P. D., 258) 387 Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U. S., 722) ___ 483 People, Dixon v. (18 Mich., 84) 285 People V. Feilen (58 Cal., 218) 285 People of the State of New York v. Frank M. Baker (76 N. Y., 78)___ 305 Pepper, Helen L. (9 P. D., 500) 278 Peterson, Carrie (11 P. D., 139)__ 183,297 Phelan v. Phelan (35 111. App., 511, and 135 111., 445) 410 Phillips on Evidence (vol. 2, p. 286) 469 Piatt, Oliver v. (3 Howard, 333) ___ 514 Pierce, Oliver P. (7 P. D., 91) 56 Poland, Nicholas, widow of (8 P. D., 266) 273 Port V. Port (70 111., 484) 328 Potter's Dwarris (p. 203) 219 Powell V. Powell (29 Vt., 148) 416 Pratt V. Pratt (157 Mass., 503) 447 Prescott, Charles R., mother of (12 P. D., o. s., 477) 131 Preston, Hilliard (8 P. D., 374) 265 R. Rainey, James II. (8 P. D,, 77) 15 Rankin, Lewis (11 P. D., 373) 253, 379, 450 Ransom, Albert K. (5 P. D., 184) __ 277 Rappleye, Milton M. (10 P. D., 464) 243 Ratcliff, Scott's Lessee v. (5 Peters, 81) 105 Rathton, Nancy (9 P. D., 162) 277, 467, 5Q4 Rawls, Hull V. (27 Miss., 471 )_____ 285 Rector, Smith v. (10 Humph., 57) __ 469 Redding, Daniel M. (2 P. D., 167) __ 264 Reed, Fenton v. (4 Johns., 51) 37 Rice V, Lumley (10 Ohio St., 596)- 314, 349 Page. Richards v. Richards (11 P. D., 90) _ 8, 45, 58, 263, 336 Riddle, Lewis (11 P. D., 252) 15 Riddle, Mary (10 P. D., 441) 160,448 Ridgeway, Basil T. (9 P. D., 300) __ 409 Riley U Benedict, 410) 81 Roach, Nannie (7 P. D., 80) _ 160,440,448 Robinson, John S. (11 P. D., 390) _ 277,504 Rogers, Estell v. (1 Bush. Ky., 62) 440,449 Rogers v. Lessees of Park et al. (4 Humph., 480) 470 Rose V. Rose (50 Mich., 92) 12 Rosenthal v. Mayhugh (33 Ohio St., 155) 314,349 Rothery, Henry N. (11 P. D., 255) 109,336 Rothery v. Rothery (11 P. D., 77, 377) 8,58,263,336,373,507 Ryan, Philip E. (9 P. D., 289) 409 Samuels, F. M., alias Chas. Smith (12 P. D., 80) 138 Schmidlin, Elizabeth (6 P. D., 200) _ 137 Schmisseur v. Beatrie (147 111., 210) 183,328 Schouler's Domestic Relations (5 ed., par. 38) 416 Schouler's Domestic Relations (5 ed., 320-339 12 Schouler's Domestic Relations (par. 264 et seq.) 363 Schouler's Domestic Relations (sees. 254-267a) 133 Scott's Lessee v. Ratcliff (5 Peters, 81) 105 Sealey, Hautz v. (6 Birin., 405) 301 Sensendefer v. Pacific, etc., Ins. Co. (19 Fed. Rep., 68) 285 Senser r. Bower (1 P. & W., Pa., 450) 282 Server, Ann Eliza (7 P. D., 468 )_ 137,280 Sharp V. Johnson (22 Ark., 79) 103 Sharpe, Marie (8 P. D., 175) 284 Sheets, Amy P. (3 P. D., 293) 279 Sim, Burr v. (4 Whar., 149) 282 Simon v. Croft (182 U. S., 427) 158 Smith V. Rector (10 Humph., 57)___ 469 Sparhawk v. Sparhawk (114 Mass'., 355, and 116 Mass., 315) 447 Spencer, John (6 P. D., 167, and 7 P. D., 152) 166 State Bank of North Carolina, United States r. (6 Peters, 36) 164 State, Halbrook v. (34 Ark., 511) — 104 State V. Melton (120 N. C, 591) ___ 289 State, Swartz v. (13 Ohio C. C, 62) 315 State V. Whitford (86 N. C, 636) __ 289 St. Clair Co., Mills v. (8 How., 581) 403 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (par. 251) 11 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (par. 256) 56,58 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (par. 180) 339 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 63 Page. Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (par. 256) 365 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (par. 215) 483 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sec. 94) 384 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sec. 83) 437 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (sec. 97) 506 Stine, Jasper M. (9 P. D., 488) ___ 81,138 Stocljer, Mary J. (9 P. D., 506):.___ 335 Stoffer V. Stoffer (50 Mich., 491)__ 56,365 Stone V. Stone (32 Con., 142) 363 Story on Conflict of Laws (pars. 80, 81, 113) 484 Story on Conflict of Laws (sees. 105, 113) 519 Story on the Constitution of the United States (sec. 1212) 390 Strode v. Strode (3 Bush., 227) 293 Strong (86 Hun N. Y., 390) 305 Strader v. Graham (10 How., V. S., 82) 483 Striggon, Elizabeth (8 P. D., 12)___ 442 Sullivan, Pythia Ann (7 P. D., 512) _ 278 Sullivan, Sarah Ann — widow (10 P. D., 55) 253,450 Sutherland on Stat. Constr. (pp. 219, 220, 288, 314) 42,219 Sutherland on Stat. Constr. (sees. 21, 239, 240) 324,521 Swartz V. State (13 Oliio C. C, 62) _ 315 T. Taylor v. Taylor (25 Misc., 566)— 311 Teller, United States v. (107 U. S., 6468) 32 The State v. Adams (65 N. C, 537)_ 288 The Succession of Blasini, Blasini et al. V. (30 La. An., 1368) 384 The People, Dixon v. (18 Mich., 84 )_ 349 The Louisiana R. R. Co., The Rich- mond, etc., R. R. Co. V. (13 How., 71) 403 The Richmond, etc., R. R. Co. v. The Louisiana R. R. Co. (13 How., 71) _ 403 The State of Tennessee, McReynolds V. (5 Cold., 20) 214 The State of Virginia, Cohen v. (6 Wheat., 264-399) 483 Thomas, Margaret L. (9 P. D., 139) _ 327 Tobin, Ann (6 P. D., o. s., 362) 181 Teller, William (vol. 10, p. 75) 518 Treatise on Practice of Pension Bureau (p. 10, par. 3) 56 Trout, .Tohn R. (11 P. D., 435)— 409,504 Tuten, Rhoda E. (12 P. D., 83) 141 Tyler, Daniel B. (12 P. D., 385) 503 U. United States i\ Bainbridge (1 Ma- son, 81) 81 United States v. Coolidge (1 Wheat., 415) 150 Page. United States, Frisbie v. (157 U. S., 166) 32, 111 United States v. Hall (98 U. S., 343) 148 United States v. Hudson (7 Cranch, 32) 150 United States v. Johnson (124 U. S., 253) 277,504 United States v. Koch (21 Fed. Rep., 873) 32 United States v. North (112 U. S., 510) 385 United States v. State Banlc of North Carolina (6 Peters, 36) 164 United States v. Teller (107 U. S., 6468) 32 V. Valleau v. Valleau (6 Paige, 207)— 310 Van Houten v. Van Houten (12 P. D., 157) 263 Van Ottendorfer, Peter N. F. (3 P. D., 341) 215 Veach, William H. (12 P. D., 273) _ 467,504 Vischer v. Vischer (12 Barb. N. Y., 640) 305 TV. Waddell, Martin v. (16 Pet.; 367)— 403 Wales V. Wales (119 Mass., 89) 447 Walker, Mary E. (7 P. D., 197) 82 Wall V. Williamson (8 Ala., 48; 11 Ala., 839) 520 Walton V. Cotton (19 How., 355)— 32 Warwicli v. Cooper (5 Sneed, 659)-- 469 Warburton, Mary A. (7 P. D., 49)— 278 Watson, Martha (7 P. D., o. s., 212)_ 86 Welch, George (3 P. D., 121) 244 Wharton, Law of Evidence (1, par. 507) 10 Wharton, Law on Evidence (2, sees. 253, 254, 672) 308 Wheeler, Bessie C. (9 P. D., 155)— 82 Whitaker, William (3 P. D., 68) 56 White, Lockhart v. (18 Tex., 102)— 350 White V. Lowe (1 Redf., 376) 311 Whitford, State v. (86 N. C, 636)— 289 Wiggin V. K. of P. (31 Fed. Rep., 125) 165 Wilkinson v. Payne (4 Term Rep., 468) , 469 Williams, Francis M. (3 P. D., 401) _ 296 Williams, John S. (10 P. D., 169) __ 351 Williams, Joseph C. (7 P. D., 218) _ 81 Williams, Stephen F. (7 P. D., 507) _ 131 Williams, Susan (10 P. D., 92) 82 Williams v. Williams (130 N. Y., 193) 305 Wjlliamson, Isaac (1 P. D., 7) 265 Williamson, Wall v. (8 Ala., 48; 11 Ala., 839) , - 520 Wilson V. Browmlee (24 Ark., 586) _ 102 Wilson, Minna (11 P. D., 339)— 383 Wilson, Rosie (6 P. D., 133) __ 278 64 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Wlnne, Jackson v. (7 Wend. N. Y., 47) 488 WInthrop on Military Law (1, p. 773) 81 Winthrop on Military Law (1, 7C1- 775) 502 Wood, Mary M. A. (11 P. D., 158)- 335 Worcester v. Georgia (5 Pet., 515)- 519 Wriglit V. Wright (80 Mich., 572)— 12 Y. Page. Yates V. Houston (3 Tex., 433) 315 Yates, Lizzie (10 P. D., 446) 335 Yant, John (1 P. D., 118) 146 Younge v. Guilbeau (3 Wall., 641)— 362 Zoller, Jones v. (29 Hun, 551) 310 LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. XJnited States Statutes at Large. I'age. 1848, July 19, extra pay 393 1862, February 13, oath of enlist- ment — age 138 1862, March 16, military age 139 1862, July 4, act March 3, 1901 317 1862, July 14 (sec. 2), widows and minors 83 1863, March 3, draft 276 1864, July 4, military age 138, 139 1864, July 4 (sec. 7), remarriage 83 1864, July 4, remarriage — act March 3, 1901 318 1865, March 3 (sec. 4), death or remarriage 141 1865, March 3 (sec. 4), remarriage — 318 1865, March 3 (sec. 4), widows and minor's pension 83 1866, July 25, remarriage — widow's pension to 85 1867, March 2 (sec 6), navy pen- sions 169 1868, July 27, remarriage of widow or mother 85 1872, May 15, military age 138 1874, July 18, aid and attendance— 77 1874, July 18, rate 299 1878, June 17, blindness — rate 70 1879, January 25, rerating 212 1879, March 3 : Blindness — rate 70 Rerating — increase 212 1880, June 16, aid and attendance — rate 77 1882, August 7 : Adulterous cohabitation 258 Marriage 440, 446 Marriage, proof of 327 Marriage, New York_ 311 Marriage in Pennsylvania- 301 (Sec. 2), marriage of col- ored persons 161 Marriage of Indians 517 1882, August 8, payment to guard- ian 151 1884, July 4 (sec. 4), fee 527 1885, March 3, presumption of soundness 265 1886, August 4, amputation 477 1886, August 7, marriage — Indians- 477 1887, January 29, fee 526 1889, March 1, accrued pension 406 1890, March 4 : Page. Aid and attendance — rate- 77 Rate 70,299 1890, April 11, deserter's release 320 1890, June 27 : Accrued pension — payment (Sec. 2), civilians (Sec. 3), death at claim- ant's hand Dependent widow (Sec. 4707), dependent parents Desertion — discharge Drafted man or substitute- (Sec. 3), guardianship Helpless minor 266, Increase 17, Identity Marriage (Sec. 3), marriage — im- pediment Marriage in North Carolina (Sec. 3), marriage of slaves, Kentucky Remarriage (Sec. 1), means of support Minor's pension 25, Missouri militia 367, Muster (Sec. 2), rate — disability- Renewal (Sec. 3), restoration, act March 3, 1901 Service (Sec. 2), service during re- bellion Service — desertion Service — 4701 (Sec. 2), void enlistment — age 1891, March 3, fee 1892, July 14, aid and attendance — 20 S 354 180 40 24 450 273 1 527 331 22S 505 106 287 159 509 361 511 369 500 319 45 114 466 186 226 407 137 526 21, 77, 215 Rate 299 1893, January 5, fee 525 1893, December 21 : Reduction — notice _ -1 Suspension 151,379 1895, March 2, accrued pension 405 1895, March 2, reimbursement — fu- neral expenses 289 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 65 Pago. 1896, March 13, presumption of death 112,208 1898, March 30, the Maine — sea pay 428 1899, March 3 : Appeals — practice 225 Articles of separation 364 Commencement — proof 370 Construction of statutes- _ 163 Declaration — jurisdiction _ 263 Desertion 421 Desertion, separation 56 Desertion, domicile 412 Division of pension__J 7, 370 Jurisdiction, construction. 337 Limitation 479 Notice 44, 157 Practice 411 Page. 1899, March 3— Continued. Residence, Soldiers' IIome_ 490 State Home 237 1900, May 9 : Amending act June 27, 1890 322 Income 266 Restoration, act March 3, 1901 114 1901, March 1, special act, com- mencement 49 1901, March 3 : Divorce 510 Fee 5,29.111 Remarriage, restoration 114 Restoration 316 1902, July 1, desertion, discharge- 450, 451 Sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Page. 1219. Service — muster 500 2141. Loss of warrant 183 2443 and 2444. Loss of B. L. war- rant 184 4692-3. Desertion 381 4693. Militia 385 4693. Muster — service 500 4701. Length of service 392, 407 4702. Dependent relatives 391 4702. Desertion 450, 451 4702. Marriage of Indians 520 4705. Marriage of Indians 517 4705. Marriage of colored persons — 161 4705. Means of support 473 Pkge. 4707. Dependent parents. 24, 130, 362, 401 4708. Remarriage 141 4708. Restoration — widows 316 4715. Withholding pension — widow- 166 4716. Conscription 45 4716. Voluntary aiding and abetting 13 4756. Withholding pension — widow- 166 4757. Withholding pension — widow- 166 4766. Desertion 377 4766. Payment to guardian 151 4766. Suspension 377 4776. Medical referee 322 4783. Embezzlement — guardian 149 State Statutes. Page. Cherokee Nation, act November 5, 1859, divorce 475 Kentucky, Rev. Stat., chap. 52, mar- riage 440 Kentucky, Rev. Stat., 1860, chap. 28, presumption of death 293 Kentucky, act February 14, 1866, marriage of colored persons 162 Michigan, 1 Howells Stat., p. 488, support of parent 362 Michigan, 1 Howells Stat., sees. 2, 3, and 4, support of relatives 363 New Hampshire, Gen. Stat, and Sup., marriage 446 Page. New York, 3 Rev. Stat., art. 1, chap. 8, marriage 340 New York, Rev. Stat., suit to annul marriage 311 New York, 3 Rev. Stat., marriage 514 Massachusetts, Gen. Stat., chap. 81, support of poor 473 North Carolina, Code of 1872, sec. 1842, marriage of slaves 288 Ohio, Stat., sec. 4188, means of sup- port 268 Tennessee, Code, sec. 3293, marriage of slaves 469, 514, 515 13070—06- PENSION DECISIONS— VOLUME 13. TABLE OF CASES CITED. A. Page. Adair v. Mette (156 Mo., 496) 62 Adams v. Adams (12 P. D., 370) ___ 23, 77, 136, 208, 212, 271, 364, 412 Adams, Elizabeth (12 P.D., 312) ___ 121 Adams, Moses (26 Fee P. L. Bk., 419) 446 Administrator of J. W. Jolinson, Lucy Johnson r. (30 Mo., 72) 415 Alden, Pruden v. (23 Picls., 184) ___ 278 Alexander, A. P. (6 P. D., 40) 152 Alire, Julian (7 L. B. P., 332) 469 American and English Encyclopedia of Law (2 ed., pp. 370-875, (f) and note 1, p. 877) 80, 191 Ames, Joel (8 P. D., 171) 290 Amos, George W. (8 P. D., 271) 469 Amy, City of Galena v. (5 Wall., 706) -51 Andrews v. Page (3 Heisk., 666)— 141 Archanhault, Syprian (6 P. D., 240)_ 231 Armstrong, Cross v. (44 Ohio St., 613-627) 210,236 Arredondo, United States v.' (6 Pet., 715) 369 Arrington v. Arrington (116 N. Car., 170) - 233 Arthur v. Horner (96 U. S., 137)— 251 Ashford r. Metropolitan Life Insur- ance Company (80 Mo. App., 638) _ 69 Assistant Attorney-General (6 P. D., 297) 473 Attorney-General, Opinions (3 Op., 135) 257 B. Babbitt v. United States (16 C. Cls. R., 202) 417 Ball, Tamezon (3 P. D., 183) 343 Bank of Louisville v. Board of School Trustees (83 Ky., 230)— 65 Bank of the Metropolis, United States V. (15 Peters, 400) 472 Banks, Mary (4 P. D., o. s., 438)— 443 Barleyoung, John (7 P. D., 453)— 330 Barry, Succession of (48 La. An., 1143) 103 Page. Barton v. Hinds (46 Me., 121) 275 Baugher r. Nelson (9 Gill, Md., 346j- 268 Beatrie, Schmisseur v. (147 111., 210) 70 Beers, Edmund O. (7 P. D., 113)_ 295,479 Belgrade, Camden v. (78 Me., 204) _ 278 Benson, John (42 Fee P. L. Bk., 108) 76 Benson, McCaffery v. (40 La. An., 10) 104 Bent V. Weeks (44 Me., 45) 275 Berlin, H. S. (4 P. D., 97) 281 Bidlake, Daniel (3 P. D., 27) 88 Bird, Daniel (10 P. D., 105) 141 Bishop, Angelina M (8 P. D., 357)— 303 Bishop on Mar., Div. and Sep. (vol. 1, par. 1302 and note 3) 24 Bishop on Mar., Div. and Sep. (sees. 923, 940, 951) 66,74 Bittick, State r. (103 Mo., 183) 62 Black's Const. Law (chap. 22) 256 Black on Inter, of Laws (115) 380 Blake» Sylvester F. (L. B. No. 511, p. 445) 401 Board of School Trustees, Bank of Louisville v. (83 Ky., 230) 65 Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County, Canajoharie National Bank v. (67 N. Y., 109) 34 Borrowdate. Malter v. (28 Hun., N. Y., 336) 159 Borthwick, Charles F. (10 P. D., 249) 474 Boulden r. Mclntire (119 Ind., 574) 221, 337 Bouvier's Law Dictionary (vol. 2, p. 580) 24 Bowen, United States r. (100 U. S., 508) 35 Bower et ux., Senser et al. (1 Pen- rose & Watts, Pa., 450) 298 Bowles, Harvey (10 P. D., 133) 35 Brannock, Dyer et al. v. (66 Mo.. 391) 62, 415 Breadalbane (L. R., 2 H. L. Sc, 269) 407 Bremer r. Briggs (32 Ohio St., 478)- 121 Briggs, Bremer v. (32 Ohio St., 478). 121 66 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 67 Page. Briggs, Davie v. (97 U. S., 628)— 54,65 Broom's Legal Maxims (7tli ed., p. U47) Brown, Cliarles F., widow of (8 P. D., 92) Brown v. Clieatliam (91 Tenn., 97 )_ Brown, Dickerson r. (49 Miss., 373) _ Brown, Minerva (11 P. D., 266) — 124 467 142 64 63,66 Buck 1-. Buck (60 111., 105) 424 Buchanan, Joseph S., v. Harvey, Adeline (35 Mo., 276) 415 Buchanan, Sarah (10 P. D., 423) — - 70 Buker, Mary A. (1 P. D., 108) 343 Bullock, Lovell (12 I'. D., 244)— 294,479 Burton, .Jeannette (9 P. D., 31)— 90 Bush, Sarah (9 P. D., 144) 347 Butler V. Palmer (1 Hill, N. Y., 324) 268 Buzick v. Buzick (12 P. D., 143)— 424 C. Cady r. Eggleston (11 Mass., 282 )_ 278 Calvert, Carpenter v. (83 HI., 62) __ 479 Calvert, Floyd v. (53 Miss., 37) 63 Camben r. Belgrade (78 Me., 204) __ 278 Campbell v. Holt (115 U. S., 620) __ 268 Canajoharie National Bank r. Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County (67 N. Y., 109) 34 Cargile r. Wood (63 Mo., 501) 62 Carley, Timothy L. (7 P. D., 12) _ 244,281 Carpenter v. Calvert (83 HI., 62)— 479 Cartwright et al. r. McGown (121 111., 388) 215,405 Caton, James (6 P. D., 159) 295,481 Caujolle V. Ferrie (23 N. Y., 90)___ 63 Central Pacific Railroad, United States r. (118 U. S., 235) 35 Cheatham, Brown v. (91 Tenn., 97)- 142 Chester, Londonderry v. (2 N. H., 268, 279) 215 Chew Heong v. United States (112 U. S., 536)— 251 Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company r. United States (127 U. S., 406) 251 Chryst, Mary (8 P. D., 242) 3 Citizens' Gas Company, Louisville Gas Company v. (115 U. S., 683). • 35 City of Galena r. Amy (5 Wall., 706) 251 Claflin, United States v. (97 U. S., 546) 34, 251 Clark, Jacob S. (12 P. D., 70) 479 Clark et al., Clark v. (48 Mo. App., 157) 209 Clark V. Cox (32 Mich., 204, 211, 212) 80, 303 Cline, William (7 P. D., 119) 362 Coal Run Coal Company v. Jones (127 111., 379) 70 Coats V. Coats (12 P. D., 507) 301, 427, 432 Cody, Dunlap v. (31 Iowa, 260) 210 Coffey, George M. (4 P. D., 285) 252 Page. Colby, Caroline E. G. (7 P. D., 24 )_ 475 Cole V Cole (153 HI., 585) 70 Cole V. Cole (3 Mo. App., 571) 209 Collins, Amy (12 P. D., 292) 65 Collins, Martin (11 P. D., 206) 239 Collins V. Voorhees (47 N. J. Eq., 555) 403 Com., Hampton v. (19 Pa. St., 329 )_ 268 Coney, Angelina (7 P. D., 390) 229 Coney, John G. (3 P. D., 200) 227 Conover v. Conover (11 P. D., 524 )_ 207 Cooley's Const. Lim. (5th ed., p. 76 and note 1-456 and note 2)_. 35 Cooley's Const. Lim. (6th ed., p. 494 and note 1) 210 Cooper V. Cooper (12 P. D., 163)— 23, 77, 136, 237, 271, 367 Cooper V. Cooper (13 P. D., 208)— 23, 348, 447 Coosaw Mining Company v. South Carolina (144 U. S., 557) 35 Corder, Frankboner v. (127 Ind., 124) 337 Corn, Spier r. (33 Ohio St., 236). 210,236 County of Middlesex, Swan v. (101 Mass., 173) 81 Cowen, Franklin S. (7 P. D., 374)— 331 Cowle, Fowle v. (63 Me., 245) 275 Cowls V. Cowls (3 (ill.. Ill, 435; 44 Am. Dec, 708 and note) 424 Cox, Clark v. (32 Mich., 204, 211, 212) 80, 303 Cox V. Cox (19 Ohio St., 502) ___ 210,236 Craig, Mary (13 P. D., 259) 349 Crawford, Joseph (7 P. D., 582) ___ 293 Cross V. Armstrong (44 Ohio St., 613-627) 210, 236 Crowe i'. Wilson (65 Md., 479 ; 57 Am. Rep., 343) 434 Cumby v. Henderson (6 Tex. Ct. App., 519) 131 Curtis, Frank H., widow of (2 P. D., 159) 235 Dalrymple, Wesley (10 P. D., 250 )_ 285 Davie v. Briggs (97 U. S., 628) 54,65 Davis, John, minors of (9 P. D., 151) 152 Davis, Margaret E. (10 P. D., 236- 237) — 300 Davis V. Shields (26 Wend., 351 and note 5) 401 Decker, Sarah M. (11 P. D., 200) __ 487 Delozier v. Delozier (13 P. D., 176) _ 347 Den, McEwen i\ (24 How., 242)— 35 Dennis, Annie (9 P. D., 243-248- 547) 124, 221 Dennison v. Dennison (35 Md., 361) 51,73 Derhammer, Anna (16 Fee P. L. Bk., 362) 445 Dickson, United States v. (15 Peters U. S., 141) 398 Dickerson v. Brown (49 Miss., 373) 64 Diggs V. Wormley (21 D. C, 477)— 74 68 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Dilley, Asa H. (11 P. D., 257) 280 Dixon V. People (18 Mich., 84) 221 Doan, Louisa J. (8 P. D., 377) 181, 221, 338 Doane, Melhop v. (31 Iowa, 597) ___ 210 Douglas, George W. (11 P. D., 448) _ 150 Dudley v. Grayson (6 Mon., 263) ___ 67 Dunlap V. Cody (31 Iowa, 260) 210 Durkee, James J. (8 P. D., 152) ___ 285 Duross, James (13 P. D., 222) 460 Dustin V. Dustin (13 P. D., 77) 204, 233, 301, 304 Duvall, James (9 P. D., 218) 471 Dyer, David H. (9 P. D., 87) 239 Dyer et al. v. Brannock (66 Mo., 391) 62, 415 Dyer, Tyler v. (13 Me., 41) 278 E. Eastridge, Mary E. (8 P. D., 5) 471 Edgar v. Stover (59 Mo., 87). 210 Eggleston, Cady v. (11 Mass., 282) _ 278 Eliason, United States v. (16 Peters, 291) 421 Ellis, Eliza J. (12 P. D., 159) 51, 59, 72, 100, 368 Ellis V. Ellis (11 P. D., 268) 207 Elwell, Gore v. (22 Me., 442) 278 Ely V. Holton (15 N. Y., 595) 34 Enfinger, John (13 P. D., 248) 351 Ennis v. Smith (14 How., 430) 277 Evans v. Reynolds (32 Ohio St., 163) 124 Everman, Samuel (Assistant Secre- tary Hawkins, 1 P. D., 418) 231 Ewing et al., Sneed v. (5 J. J. M., 490) 66 Exchange Bank, Knox v. (12 Wall., 379) 278 Exton V. Jule (14 N. J. Eq., 501)— 277 Fairfield v. Gullifer (49 Me., 360) __ 275 Fanning v. Fanning (13 P. D., 161) 347 Farrell, Edward (7 P. D., 532) 331 Fellows, Harriet M. (7 P. D., 387) __ 175 Ferrie, C^ujolle v. (23 N. Y., 90) __ 63 Filones v. Filones (12 P. D., 237)— 367 Fisher v. Fisher (12 P. D., 336) ___ 77, 161, 233, 301, 303 Fisk, Mary J. (11 P. D., 162) 400,498 Fitler v. Fitler (33 Pa. St., 50) 145 Fleck, George W. (7 P. D., 343) __ 48,240 Fleck, State v. (54 Iowa, 429) 210 Floyd v. Calvert, (53 Miss., 37) 63 Flying, an Indian (8 P. D., 376) ___ 76 Flynn, Ellen (widow) (8 P. D., 54) _ 342 Fontenette, Pierre v. (25 La. An., 617) 100 Foot, Penny wit (27 Ohio St., 600) 210, 236 Forbin v. Forbin (13 P. D., 120) ___ 221 Fore, Marx v. (51 Mo., 69) 210 Foster, Job (3 P. D., 35) 467 Fowle V. Cowle (63 Me., 245) 275 Page. Frankboner v. Corder (127 Ind., 124) 337 Freeman on Judgments (4 ed., p. 133 and note " 1 '') 210 French v. Pratt (27 Me., 381)——- 275 G. Gabriel, Francoise (12 P. D., 382) __ 341 Gates, Golahar r. (20 Mo., 238) 210 Germain, Louisa C. (11 P. D., 66) _ 66,93 Germaine, United States v. (9» U. S., 508) 420 Gilbert, George W. (9 P. D., 279) __ 252 Gillespie, John (13 P. D., 280) 381 Gilliland, Mary J. (13 P. D., 90)_ 279,402 Girod V. Lewis (7 Martin (La.), 559) 60, 100 Goard, John R. (9 P. D., 355) 287 Goin, Frederick P. (9 P. D., 423) __ 460 Golahar v. Gates (20 Mo., 238) 210 Goldenburg, United States v. (168 U. S., 95) 35,261 Goodman, Mary A. (13 P. D., 37) 40 Gore V. Elwell (22 Me., 442) 278 Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., Kendrick, etc., V. (8 Ky., L. R., 149) 65 Graves, James R., minor of (13 P. D., 148) 415 Grayson, Dudley v. (6 Mon., 263 )__ 67 Griffin, Seth W. II. (6 P. D., 246) __ 88 Green, Ann (12 P. D., 306-310). 104,277 Green, United States v. (98 Fed. Rep., 63) 123, 222 Green v. Green et al. (126 Mo., 17)- 416 Greenleaf on Evidence (vol. 1, sees. 34, 108, 509, 525, 550) __ 61,97,277,278 Guinn, Rogers v. (21 Iowa, 58) 210 Gullifer, Fairfield v. (49 Me., 360) _ 275 Guyot, Hilton v. (159 U. S., 167)— 277 H. Hagarty, William H. (10 P. D., 359) 280 Hallett, Emma J. (13 P. D., 31 )_ 250,261 Halstead, Alfred (7 P. D., 359) 76 Hamilton, Alfred S., minor of (7 P. D., 437) 372 Hamilton v. Rathbone (175 U. S., 419) 35 Hamilton v. State (53 Am. Rep., 491 and note) 400 Hamlin v. Talbott (72 Mo., App., 22) 210 Hampton v. Com. (19 Pa. St., 329) _ 268 Hankinson, Obediah P. (9 P. D., 292) 48 Hannan, Joseph (9 P. D., o. s., 76) _ 469 Hantch v. Hantch (12 P. D., 44)— 207 Hardin's Ex. v. Harrington (11 Bush., 367) 66 Harden, Margaret E. (12 P. D., 278) 66 Harrington, Hardin's Ex. r. (11 Bush, 367) 66 PEKSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 69 Page. Harris, T. A. (7 P. D., 50) 468,471 Harris r. Harris (8 HI., App., 57)_ 70,221 Harris v. Harris (12 P. D., 7, 9, 10, 12) 300,301,427,432 Harrison v. Lincoln (48 Me., 205) __ 279 Hart V. Hoss and Elder (26 La. An.. 90) 100, 174 Hartford v. United States (8 Cranch, 109) 250 Hartman, Meyer v. (14 Mo., App., 132) 210 Harvey, Adeline, Joseph S. Buch- anan V. (35 Mo., 276) 415 Hawkins, Lettie (8 P. D., 22) 74 Hawkins, Margaret (10 P. D., 191 )_ 171 Hayford, Ira W. (9 P. D., 307) __ 295,460 Heath, United States v. (3 Cranch, 398) 35 Hegeman, Moore r. (92 N. Y., 521 )_ 159 Hendee, United States v. (124 U. S., 809) 417 Henderson, Cumby v. (6 Tex. Ct. App., 519) 131 Henderson's Tobacco (11 Wall., U. S., 652) 251 Henry, Red Rock v. (106 U. S., 596) 34,251 Hewitt V. Long (76 111., 399-409 )__ 424 Hewitt V. Wilcox (1 Mete, Mass., 154) 268 Higgins, Annie (10 P. D., 110) 235 Hill, George W. (7 P. D., 235) 239 Hill, John J. (7 P. D., 142) 295,479 Hilton V. Guyot (159 U. S., 167)___ 277 Hinds, Barton r. (46 Me., 121) 275 Hirsch, Robert (2 P. D., 304) 88 Hoffman v. Hoffman (43 Mo., 547) _ 209 Holland v. Mayor of Baltimoi-e (11 Md., 186; 69 Am. Dec, 195) 434 Holt, Campbell v. (115 U. S., 620 )_ 268 Holton, Ely v. (15 N. Y., 595) 34 Holtsworth, Eveline (7 P. D., 48) __ 303 Horner, Arthur v. (96 U. S., 137 )__ 251 Hoss and Elder, Hart v. (26 La. An., 90) 100, 174 Houston, Yates v. (3 Tex., 433) 221 Howard, Lafayette G. (8 P. D., 230) 149,152 Howell's Annotated Statutes of Michigan (vol. 1, p. 1291, sec. 103) 81 Hughes, Mary E. (10 P. D., 67-71 )_ 303 Hughes, William H. (9 P. D., 152) _ 171 Human, .TeflfersonM. (12 P. D., 500)_ 239 Hurst, Thomas L. (7 P. D., 583) __ 482 Hyer, Lodiska C. (8 P. D., 298) 124 I. Ingersoll v. Ingersoll (49 Pa. St., 249) 302 Inhabitants of Twining, Rex v. (2 B. and Aid., 386) 221 Insurance Companies, Stockdale i\ (20 Wall., 323-332) 254 J. Page. Jackson v. Jackson (80 Md., 176 ; 82 Md.. 17) 73 .Tanes v. Janes (5 Blackford, 141) __ 221 Johnson, John (9 P\ D., 34S)_ 225,295,460 .Johnson v. Johnson (114 111., 611)_ 67,70 Johnson i\ .Tohnson (45 Mo., 595) 60 .Johnson, Lucy, r. Administrator of John W. Johnson (30 Mo., 72) __ 415 Johnson v. Ousted (74 Mich., 437) _ 145 Jones, Coal Run Company v. (127 111., 379) 70 Jones V. .Tones (36 Md., 447 ; 45 Md., 144) 72 Jones, William H. (12 P. D., 215) __ 460 .Jordan, Nason r. (62 Me., 480) 278 Joyce, Olivia (7 P. D., 156) 445 Jule, Exton v. (14 N. J. Eq., 501 )__ 277 Kearns, Peter, widow of (314 L. B., 40) 124 Keating, James (7 P. D., 280) 171 Kehr v. Smith (20 Wall., 31) 24 Kendrick, etc., r. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. (8 Ky., L. R., 149) 65 Kennedy v. Kennedy (87 111., 250) __ 177 Kennedy, Wood v. (19 Ind., 68) 268 Kent, Fredricka (10 P. D., 211) 121 Kerr, George, mother of (8 P. D., 494) 190 Kersey, Sarah A. (6 P. D., 1) 239 Kilmer v. Kilmer (13 P. D., 270 )__ 367 King, J. C. (9 P. D., 430) 394 Kingsbury, Harriet K. (7 P. D., o. s., 19) 443 Kite, Alfred (9 P. D., o. s., 232) ___ 469 Klein V. Landman (29 Mo., 250) ___ 61 69, 221 Klein, Moses (8 P. D., 470) 3 Knoop, C. F. (8 P. D., 335) 3 Knox V. Exchange Bank (12 Wall., 379) 278 Lake v. Lake (13 P. D., 22) 366 Lalone, Margaret (11 I'. D., 301) 184 Lalone v. United States (164 U. S., 255) 487 Landman, Klein v. (29 Mo., 259) 61, 69, 221 Larkin v. Saflfarans et al.. United States circuit court, western dis- trict Tennessee (15 Fed. Rep., 147) 266 Laughlin, .John (9 P. D., 466) 229 Lawrence v. Nelson (113 Iowa, 277) 210 Leaton, Napton v. (71 Mo., 25^-367) 210 Lee V. Lee (161 Mo., 52) 60 Lewis, Girod v. (7 Martin (La.), 559) 60, 100 Lewis, Jennie D. (6 P. D., 294) 125 Lilly, Edward (3 P. D., o. s., 132) __ 469 70 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page Lincoln, Harrison v. (48 Me., 205) _ 279 Livengood v. Livengood (13 V. D., 134) 212,364 Livingston v. Williams (75 Tex., 9)_ 132 Lockyer v. Lockyer (1 Edm. Sel. Cases, N. Y., Cir. Ct, 107) 388 Londonderry v. Chester (2 N. H., 268, 279) 215 Long, Hewitt v. (75 111., 399-409) _ 424 Lore, Wright v. (12 Ohio St., 619) _ 542 Loringu. Steineman (1 Mete, 204) _ 276 Loughry v. Loughry (11 P. D., 523) 207 Louisville Gas Company v. Citizens' Gas Company (115 U. S., 683) ___ 35 Louisiana Sugar Refining Company, New Orleans Water Works Com- pany V. (125 U. S., 18) 278 Lucas, Strothers v. (12 Pet., 410) __ 369 M. McCaffery v. Benson (40 La. An., 10) 104 McClurney, Elizabeth (5 P. D., o. s., 349) 469 McCobl V. Smith (1 Black., U. S., 459, 470) 250 McCullum, Mary B. (6 P. D., 93) __ 215 McEwen v. Den (24 How., 242) 35 McGown, Cartright v. (121 111., 388) 215,405 Mclntire, Boulden v. (119 Ind., 574) 221,337 Mcintosh, Eppenetus W. (10 P. D., 172) 295,479 Mclnturff, Laban W. (12 P. D., 77, 299) 479 McLaurine v. Monroe (30 Mo., 462) 210 McQuay, Charles (10 P. D., 18) 331 McReary, Stevenson's Heirs v. (20 Miss., 56) _■ 62 McReynolds v. State (5 Cold. (Tenn.), 18) 60 Mackey, Susannah (8 P. D., 535) 229 Malter v. Borrowdate (28 Hun., N. Y., 336) 159 Martin, Jackson (7 P. D., 265) 474 Marx V. Fore (51 Mo., 69) 210 Maxcy, White v. (64 Mo., 552) 69 May, Christian (8 P. D., 71) 487 May, Sarah J. (10 P. D., 53) 539 Mays, Benjamin R. (10 P. D., 109 )_ 293 Mayor of Baltimore, Holland v. (11 Md., 186; 69 Am. Dec, 195) 434 Medley v. Medley (12 P. D., 490) ___ 135, 212, 367 Meeker, John H. (10 P. D., 182) __ 35,229 Meister v. Moore (96 U. S., 76) __ 278, 370 Melhop V. Doane (31 Iowa, 597) 210 Melton V. Melton (13 P. D., 211)___ 347 Merritt, Maria (10 P. D., 157) 59 Mette Adair v. (156 Mo., 496) ___ 62 Metropolitan Life Insurance Com- pany, Ashford v. (80 Mo. App., 638) 69 Page. Meyer v. Hartman (14 Mo. App., 132) 210 Millard v. Millard (12 P. D., 263) __ 432 Monholland, Frances (7 P. D„ 494 )_ 461 Monroe, McLaurine v. (30 Mo., 462) 210 Moody, Leander (12 P. D., 212) 293 Moore, Mary L. (3 P. D., o. s., 72) _ 443 Moore v. Hegeman (92 N. Y., 521 )_ 159 Moore, Meister v. (96 U. S., 76) __ 278, 370 Moore v. Moore (8 Abbott, N. Cases, N. Y., 171) 159 Morse, L. D. W. (11 P. D., 183) 229 Morton, Almira J. (3 P. D., 353) ___ 343 Morton, United States v. (112 U. S., 1) 417 Mouat, United States v. (124 U. S., 303) 420 Mudd, Smothers v. (9 B. M., 492) __ 67 Mulick, John G. (12 P. D., 186) 331 Mullin, Chambers C. (2 P. D., 18) __ 469 Mumson, Charles W^ (8 P. D., 386). 29 N. Napton V. Leaton (71 Mo., 258-367) 210 Nason v. Jordan (62 Me., 480) 278 Navarro, Succession of (24 La. An., 298) 104 Nelson, Baugher v. (9 Gill, Md., 346) 268 Nelson, Lawrence v. (113 Iowa, 277) 210 Nelson on Div. and Sep. (par. 580, and note 1, p. 543, and notes 1, 2, 3, 4, p. 544) 221 New Orleans Water Works Company V. Louisiana Refining Company (125 U. S., 18) 278 Newman, Seymour v. (77 Mo. App., 578) 210 Norton, Simpson v. (45 Me., 281)— 276 O. O'Brien, Nora (12 P. D., 32) 63,66 OBryan v. O'Bryan (12 Mo., 16; 53 Am. Dec, 128) 389 Oram v. Oram (3 Redf., 300) 159 Orr, Mary C. (10 P. D., 348; 11 P. D., 131) 61 Osborne, Stephenson v. (90 Am. Dec, 369) 24 Ousted, Johnson v. (74 Mich., 437). 145 Ozborn, Sarah H. (7 -P. D., 317) 252 Page, Andrews v. (3 Heisk., 666) __ 141 Pain, alias Foreman (12 P. D., 351) 229 Pain V. Pain (37 Mo. App., 110) ___ 61, 221 Palmer, Butler v. (1 Hill, N. Y., 324) 268 Palmer, Esther A. (11 P. D., 320)— 66 Parker v. Parker (88 App. Ct. Rep., 22) 179 Passons, Andrew J. (8 P. D., 416) _ 255,267 Paul, Jacob (10 P. D., pp. 422, 423, text) 38,39 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 71 Page. Paxton, Robert B. (4 P. D., 114)— 88 Pearce, Succession of (30 La. An., 1168) 100,174 Pennybaker, C. D. (2 P. D., 257) _— 281 People, Dixon v. (18 Mich., 84) 221 People, Shannon v. (5 Mich., 89) 145 People, Steele v. (88 111. App., 186) _ 424 Perkins, Harvey, minors of (13 P. D., 414) 541 Peugnet v. Phelps (48 Barb., N. Y., 566) 159 Peyroux's Rev. Civ. Code of 1883 (pp. 113, 116, 117, 118) 103 Phelan v. Phelan (135 111., 445) 177 Phelps, Peugnet v. (48 Barb., N. Y., 566) 159 Pierce v. Pierce (12 P. D., 412-413- 415) 77,233,801,304 Pierre v. Fontenette (25 La. An., 617) 100 Pierson, Allen B., minor of (13 P. D., 151) 415 Pike, Herman G. (8 P. D., 314) 487 Pinckley, Ann F. (8 P. D., 446) 303 Plaster v. Plaster (47 111., 290, and 53 111., 445) 424 Powell V. Powell (13 P. D., 236)— 448 Pratt, French v. (27 Me., 381) 275 Preston, Hilliard (8 P. D., 374) 88 Pruden v. Alden (23 Pick., 184) 278 Pulver, Jonas W., minors of (10 P. D., 227) 415,542 Purnell, Mollie (10 P. D., 431) 74 B. Railroad Company v. Rock (4 Wall., 177) 278 Randall, Succession of (26 La. An., 163) 100 Ranlett, United States v. (172 U. S., 133) 34,251 Rathbone, Hamilton v. (175 U. S., 419) 35 Redbird, Jack, minor of (12 P. D., 517) 72,174,368 Red Rock v. Henry (106 U. S., 596) _ 34, 251 Reese, United States v. (92 U. S., 214-244) , 35 Rex V. Inhabitants of Twining (2 B. and Aid., 386) 221 Reynolds, Evans v. (32 Ohio St., 163) 124 Rice, Mary J. (7 P. D., 569) 474 Richards v. Richards (11 P. D., 90) _ 177, 271, 367, 432 Richardson v. Smith (80 Md., 189.) 49,73 Riley, Thomas (5 P. D., o. s., 304) __ 469 Ritter v. Ritter ( 13 P. D., 40) _ 162, 176, 347 Roberts, Alonzo (8 P. D., 83) 304 Rock, Railroad Company v. (4 Wall., 177) 278 Rogers v. Guinn (21 Iowa, 58) 210 Ross, Lucinda (12 P. D., 474) 72,369 Ross V. Ross (34 La. An., 860) ___ 100, 175 Ross V. Ross (123 Mass., 212) 276 Page. Rothery, Henry N. (11 P. D., 255)— 177, 271, 367 Rothery v. Rothery (11 P. D., 77, 377) 177,271,367,427,432 Rush V. Rush (46 Iowa, 648, and 48 Iowa, 701) — 210 S. Saffarans et al.. United States Circuit Court Western District Tennessee, Larkin v. (15 Fed. Rep., 147) 266 Schmlsseur v. Beatrie (147 Ill.,-210) 70 Schneider, Elizabeth (12 P. D., 348) 124,221 Schouler's Dom. Rel. (5 ed., 320- 339) 302 Schouler's Dom. Rel. (12 ed., par. 237) ; 424 Schweigert, Maggie (5 P. D., 32) 344 Sconey, James (1 P. D., 372) 469 Scott V. Scott (12 P. D., 411-412)- 143, 208 Sedgwick on Stat. Constr. (par. 202) _ 256 Senser et al. v. Bower et ux. (1 Pen- rose and Watts, Pa., 450) 298 Sewell V. Sewell (122 Mass., 156- 161) 209 Seymour v. Newman (77 Mo. App., 578) 210 Shannon, Andrew J. (7 P. D., 64) __ 229 Shannon v. People (5 Mich., 89) 145 Sharpe, Marie (8 P. D., 175) 56 Shields, Davis v. (26 Wend., 351, and note 5) 401 Shinnaugh, Calvan (10 P. D., 210) __ 252 Shon V. Waterson (17 Wall., 596) __ 35 Shouse, Hiram C. (9 P. D., o. s., 66) _ 469 Showalter, Simon P. (7 P. D., 478) _ 293 Simpson i'. Norton (45 Me., 281) ___ 276 Sinla, Polly Ann Chulaska (7 P. D., 353) — — 368 Smith, Ennis v. (14 How., 430) 277 Smith, Kehr v. (20 Wall., 31) 24 Smith, McCool v. (1 Black., 459, 470) 250 Smith, Richardson v. (80 Md., 189) _ 49,73 Smith V. Smith (13 P. D., 177) 301, 427, 432 Smith V. Smith (43 La. An,, 1140). 102 Smothers v. Mudd (9 B. M., 492) ___ 67 Sneed v. Ewing et al. (5 J. J. M., 490) 66 South Carolina, Coosaw Mining Com- pany r. (144 U. S., 557) 35 Spier V. Corll (33 Ohio St., 236) _ 210,236 Squire v. State (46 Ind., 459) 221 Stack, John G., mother of (2 P. D., 153) 342 Stall, State v. (17 Wall., U. S., 425) _ 251 Stanton v. Wilson's executors (3 Day, Conn., 37; 3 Am. Dec, 255-258) _ 423 Stark on Ev. (p. 4 and 1248-1249). 299 State V. Bittick (103 Mo., 183) 62 State V. Fleck (54 Iowa, 429) 210 State, Hamilton v. (53 Am. Rep., 491, and note) 400 72 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page State, McReynolds r.(5 Cold. (Tenn.), 18) 60 State, Squire v. (46 Ind., 459) 221 State V. Stall (17 Wall., U. S., 425) _ 251 State, Swartz v. (13 Ohio C. C, 62) _ 121 State, Van Fossen v. (27 Ohio St., 317) 210,236 Steele v. People (88 111. App., 186) _ 424 Steineman, Loring r. (1 Mete, 204 )_ 276 Stephenson v. Osborne (90 Am. Dec, 30) 24 Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary (20 Miss., 56) ^ 62 Stewart on Husband and Wife (sees. 249, 250, 289) 275 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce (pars. 180, 191, 251, 252) ___ 24,80,432 Still, James, alias .Tames, minors of (12 P. D., 25) 150 Stockdale v. Insurance Companies (20 Wall., 323-332) 254 Stoflfer V. Stoffer (50 Mich., 491) ___ 179 Stolzenberg, Lewis P. (1 P. D., 428) _ 88 Storms, Mary J. (10 P. D., 192) __ 277,369 Story on Conflict of Law (7 ed., par. 229a and note *' 1," p. 258) 210 Stover, Edger v. (59 Mo., 87) 210 Strothers v. Lucas (12 Pet., 410) ___ 369 Sutherland on Stat. Const, (pars. 133, 255, 256, 283, 284, 406,407) 34, 35, 191, 253, 351 Sutherland on Stat. Const, (sees. 202-204) 380 Swan V. County of Middlesex (101 Mass., 173) 81 Swartz, John (2 P. D., 3) 469 Swartz V. State (13 Ohio C. C, 62) __ 121 Swift V. Tyson (16 Pet., 18) 272,277 T. Talbott, Hamlin i\ (72 Mo. App., 22) 210 Taylor, Succession of (39 La. An., 823) 104 Taylor, William B. (9 P. D., 360) __ 229 Teeple et al., Wenning et al. v. (144 Ind., 189, 193) 220,337 Teller, United States v. (107 U. S., 64-68) 255,256,472 Teter v. Teter (101 Ind., 129) 221 Thomas, Peggy (13 P. D., 98) 175 Thompson, Cassie (8 P. D., 67) 231 Thompson, Jennette (7 P. D., 262 )_ 175 Thompson, Stephen (7 P. D., 26) __ 88 Thompson v. Whitman (18 Wall., 457) 210 Town of Greensborough v. Under- hill (12 Vt, 604) 221 Travers, Alice E., widow (1 P. D., 110) 343 Trosper, .Tames (8 P. D., 75) 202 Trout, John R. (11 P. D., 435) 48 Tuttle, Samuel, father of (11 P. D., 278) 52,72 Tyler v. Dyer (13 Me., 41) 278 Tyson, Swift v. (16 Pet., 18) 272-277 U. Page. Underbill, Town of Greensborough V. (12 Vt, 604) 221 United States v. Arredondo (6 Pet., 715) 369 United States, Babbitt v. (16 C. Cls. R., 202) 417 United States r. Bank of the Me- tropolis (15 Peters, 400) 472 United States v. Bowen (100 U. S., 508) 35 United States v. Central Pacific Rail- road (118 U. S., 235) 35 United States, Chew Heong v. (112 U. S., 536) 251 United States, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company r. (127 U. S., 406) 251 United States t'. Claflin (97 U. S., 546) 34,251 United States i\ Dickson (15 Peters, U. S., 141) 398 United States v. Eliason (16 Peters, 291) 421 United States v. Germaine (99 U. S., 508) 420 United States v. Goldenburg (168 U. S., 95) 35,261 United States v. Green (98 Fed. Rep., 63) 123,222 United States, Hartford v. (8 Cranch, 109) 250 United States v. Heath (3 Cranch, 398) 35 United States v. Hendee (124 U. S., 309) 417 United States, Lalone v. (164 U. S., 255) 487 United States v. Morton (112 U. S., 1) 417 United States v. Mouat (124 U. S., 303) 420 United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133) 34,251 United States v. Reese (92 U. S., 214-244) 35 United States v. Teller (107 U. S., 64-68) 255,256,472 United States v. Wiltberger (5 Wheat., 76) 35 United States, Wisconsin Central Railroad v. (164 U. S., 190 35 United States, Wood r. (16 Pet., 342, 363) 250 United States, Yerke v. (173 U. S., 442) 35 Van Fossen v. State (27 Ohio St., 317) 210,236 Van Houten i->. Van Houten (12 P. D., 157) 208 Veale, Alonzo C. (11 P. D., 299) ___ 474 Viles, Mahala (12 P. D., 468) 66 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 73 Page. Voorhees, Collins v. (47 N. J. Eq., 555) 403 Voorhees v. Voorhees (46 N. J. Eq., 411) 403 TV. Wadsworth, Welch v. (30 Conn., 149) 2G8 Wagner. Caroline (12 P. D., 134) __ Gl Wallinj^ham r. Wallingham (21 Mo. App., 600) 60,70 Wangelin, Emma T. (9 P. D., 76) __ 125 Waterman on Spec. Perf. of Cont. (sec. 240) 400 Waterson, Shon v. (17 Wall., 596) _ 35 Watkins, .Tulia A. E. (10 P. D., 202) 479 Weeks, Bent r. (44 Me., 45) 275 Welch, George (3 P. D., 121) 295 Welch V. Wadsworth (30 Conn., 149) 268 Wenning et al. v. Teeple et al. (144 Ind., 189) 337 Wescott, Alonzo F. (IP. D., 316) __ 88 Wetherbee, D. A. (7 P. D., 562) 474 Weyant, William B. (9 P. D., 276) __ 190 Whalen, Anna M. (9 P. D., 346) 229 Whallan, Jessie M., widow (8 P. D., 131) 342 Wharton on Ev. (sees. 873, 889, 1245, 1323) 74,287,400 Wheaton, Cyrus G. (7 P. D., 225)— 482 Whetstone v. Whetstone (31 Iowa, 276) 210 Whitcomb v. Whitcomb (46 Iowa, 437) 210 White V. Maxcy (64 Mo., 552) 69 Page. Whitman, Thompson v. (18 Wall., 457) _• 210 Whitney v. Whitney (13 P. D., 301) 427,432 Wilcox, Hewitt v. (1 Mete, Mass., 154) 268 Williams, John S. (10 P. D., 169)_ 35,229 Williams, Livingston v. (75 Tex., 9)_ 132 Williamson, Isaac (1 P. D., 7) 88 Wilson, Crowe v. (65 Md., 479; 57 Am. Rep., 343) 434 Wilson's Executors, Stanton i-. (3 Day, Conn., 37 ; 3 Am. Dec, 255- 258) 423 Wilson, Minna (11 P. D., 339) 175 Wilson, William (10 P. D., 232) 455 Wiltberger, United States v. (5 Wheat., 76) 35 Winchell, Levi M. (510 L, B., 356 )_ 453 Winn, Joseph A., mother of (5 P. D., o. s., 110) 443 Wisconsin Central Railroad v. United States (164 U. S., 190) 35 Wood, Cargile v. (63 Mo., 501) 62 Wood V. Kennedy (19 Ind., 68) 268 Wood V. United States (16 Pet., 342, 363) ^ 250 Wormley, Diggs r. (21 D. C, 477) __ 74 Wright V. Lore (12 Ohio St., 619) __ 542 Wright V. Wright (80 Mich., 572) __ 302 Yates V. Houston (3 Tex., 433) 221 Yerke v. United States (173 U. S., 442) 35 LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. TJnited States Statutes at Large. Page. 1873, March 3, accrued pension 190 1874, June 18, aid and attendance __ 20 1875, March 1, veterinary surgeon 419 1882, August 7 : Evidence 272 Laws of Indiana 337 Marriage 51 Marriage of colored persons- 59 Marriage, Maryland 72 Marriage in Missouri and Il- linois 69 Marriage in Tennessee 140 Marriage of slaves in Texas- 129 1882, July 25, special act 95 1886, March 19, reimbursement, fraud 201 1886, August 4, total disability in arm 362 1890, .Tune 27 : Act March 6, 1896 283 Cohabitation 338 Commencement 242, 330, 352, 398 Dependence 31, 125 1890, June 27 — Continued. Dependent mother Desertion Discharge Income Increase Page. ___ 241 46 __- 237 448 _— 283 Joint resolution, 1902— 346, 349 Legitimacy 541 Marriage of colored per- sons 59 Marriage and divorce in New York 157 Marriage in Maryland 70 Minor's pension 148, 151 Mississippi Marine Bri- gade 226 Record v 230 Section 4720, Revised Stat- utes 331 Service 230 Special act 331 Termination of war of re- bellion 330 74 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. 1893, January 5, fee 75 1895, March 2, accrued pension 190 1896, March 6, commencements 283 1896, March 13, presumption of death 54 1899, March 2, veterinary surgeon 418 1809, March 3 : Appeal, evidence 299 Attorney 233 Character 383 Failure to prosecute 411 Fraud 236 Desertion 24, 77, 142, 143, 177. 180, 212, 218, 301, 430 Dismissal _ 161, 176, 211, 270, 347 Jurisdiction 208 Marriage 297 Marriage in Ohio 120 Minor, divorce 422 Moral character 383 Necessitous circumstances 205, 302 Page. 1899, March 3 — Continued. Notice 206 Payment 22, 363 Practice 134, 176, 211 Rate, rule 16 203 Rule 19 542 Rule 20 347 Treasurer, Soldiers' Home_ 363 1900, May 9, retroactive legislation- 31 1901, March 3: Act March 3, 1865 286 Remarriage 355 Restoration 355, 435 Restoration, divorce 118 Restoration of widows 286 Two pensions 378 1902, July 1 : Act June 27, 1890 346, 349 Desertion 346 Disloyalty 248, 259, 395 Retrospective law 248, 259 Sections of the Kevised Statutes of the United States. Page. 1102. Veterinary surgeon 418 4693. Veterinary surgeon 416 4702. Marriage 51 4703. Increase, special act 95 4705. Marriage 51 4705. Marriage, act June 27, 1890__ 59 4705. Marriage, Maryland, colored 72 4707. Act June 27, 1890, dependence 432 4708. Void marriage 444 4715. Two pensions 379 4716. Joint resolution July 1, 1902 128,395 4718. Accrued pension 190 4719. Accrued pension 188 4719. Restoration 392 4720. Fraud 428 4720. Special act 331-428 State Statutes. Page. Kentucky State Stat., sec 2, art. 1, ch. 52, marriage, sec. 16, ch. 37 — 65 Louisiana, Civil Code, arts. 81, 182, slave marriage 100 Louisiana, act of November 5, 1868, sees. 1 and 4, marriage 101 Louisiana, Rev. Stat., crim. proceed- ings, sec. 1, presumption of death. 101 Louisiana, Peyroux's Civ. Code, 1883, pp. 113, 116, 117, and 118, mar- riage 103 Maryland, 1715, ch. 44, sec. 24, mar- riage 51 Maryland, Code of Pub. Genl. Laws, 1867, sec. 13, ch. 62 52 Maryland, act 1777, sees. 3 and 11, marriage 73 Maryland, act March 22, 1867, mar- riage 73 Page. Michigan, Howell's Annotated Stats., vol. 1, sec. 103, p. 1291, assess- ment 81 Mississippi, 1869, December 1, mar- riage , 58 New Hampshire, Pub. Stat., ch. 174, sec. 15, marriage 215 New York, Rev. Stat., 1859, part 2, ch. 8, sec. 62, marriage 158 Ohio, Rev. Stat., 1880, sec. 4175. legitimacy 542 Tennessee, act May 26, 1866, mar- riage of colored persons 142 Texas, Const., March 30, 1870; act August 15, 1870 131 Virginia, act February 27, 1866, marriage 146-147 PENSION DECISIONS— VOLUME 14. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Page, Abbot's Trial Evidence, 353 79 "Abbotsford," The (98 U. S., 440) __ 34 Adams r, Adams (12 P. D,, 370) 122, 237, 371, 482 Adams v. Palmer (51 Me., 480) 351 Adams, Elizabeth (12 P. D., 212) __ 429 Adams, Moses (26 Fee P. L. B., 228) 275 Afflerbach, John II. (11 P. D., 508) _ Agne, Matilda (9 P. D., 327) Alexander v. Alexander (140 Ind., 155) Alexander v. United States (4 Ct. Cls., 218) Alexander, United States v. (12 Wal- lace, 177) American and English Encyclopedia of law : (led. V. 1 pp, 2 (n) 212 337, 942, 943 8 556 11 160 15 445 17 ,325, 828 25 1019 28 531 (n) 2ed. 5 883 9 • 736 768 773 783 15 670 875,877 (n. 1) __ 19 1207,1209) 257 88 413 110 34 108 87 161 87 193 381 355 96 108 342 161 47 46 403 381 140 235 324 406 342 196 Amos, George W. (8 P. D., 271) Anderson v. Watt (138 U. S., 706) _ Andre v. State (5 Iowa, 389) Archambault, Syprian (6 P. D., 240) Ashley v. Ashley (13 P. D., 205)- 139,387 Askey, Huddleston v. (56 Ala., 218) 35 Assistant Attorney-General (6 P. D., 296) 153 Attorney-General (4 Op., 70) 154 .366 110 7: 149 490 Attorney-General (7 Op., 717). 17: 192) _. Page, 110 37 Bailey, Illingsworth v. (33 111. Ap„ 394) 295 Bailey, David J, (7 P, D., 173) ___ 410,495 Baker, People v. (76 N. Y., 78) 176 Baker, William A,, sister of (9 P. D., 504) 489 Banks, Griffin v. (24 How., 215) __ 20,179 Barker v. Valentine (125 Mich., 336) 555 Barleyoung, John (7 P. D., 453) 75 Barnes, William A. (22 L, D„ 196) _ 196 Barnett v. Barnett (27 Ind, App., 471) j___ 45, 130 Baugher, Thomas W., minors of (7 P. D., 433) 24,36 Bean, Thomas (7 P. D., 527) 270 Beatrie, Schmisseur v. (147 111., 210) 19, 45, 445 Becher, Joseph (2 P. D., 109) 510 Belgrade, Camden v. (78 Me., 204 )_ 351 Bergdall's Estate (7 D. R., 137 Pa.) 212 Bertles v. Nunan (92 N. Y., 152) ___ 385 Beverlin i\ Beverlin (29 W. Va., 723) 38 Bigelow on Estoppel (p. 508) 108 Bird, Daniel (10 P. D., 104) 475 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce (see. 513) 248 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce (sec. 457) 356 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation (sec, 956) 158 Bishop, Frank, jr, (8 P. D., 459) ___ 364 Blaisdell, William (13 P. D., 465, 479) 552 Blasini et al. v. The Succession of Blasini (30 La, An., 1368) .345 Byers, Dunlap v. (110 Mich., 109) __ 232 Byrnes v. United States (26 Ct. CI., .302) 516 Byrns v. Byrns (14 P. D., 404) 489 Boeke, May E. (IP. D., 427) 89 to 76 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Bone, Wallace G. (2 P. D., 310) 324 Borthwick, Chas. F., alias Franklin Brown (10 P. D., 249) 250,324 Boston, Marden v. (155 Mass., 359) 441 Bowles, Harvey E. (10 P. D., 133) _ 515 Bowman r. Bowman (14 P. D., 120) 237, 317, 373 Boyd, Melissa (14 P. D., 279) 292 Bram, Zerntlien r. (100 N. Y., 12) _ 386 Brewster, Amelia L. (7 P. D., 296)- 329 Brice's Estate (2 W. N. C, 112 Pa.) 212 Briggs V. Briggs (24 S. Car., 377) __ 46 Briggs, Davie v. (98 U. S, Repts., 535) 444 Brobst I'. Brobst (13 P. D., 218) __ 233,240 Brogunier, Elizabeth (9 P. D., o. s., 250) 117 Bronson, Hammick v. (5 Day, 290) _ 470 Brower v. Brower (1 Abb., Ct. App., 214) 20, 179 Brown, Jones v. (2 Ex. Reports, Wellsby, Hurlstone, Gordon, 329 )_ 35 Brown v. McGee (12 Bush., 428)— 475 Brown, Minor v. (133 N. Y„ 308) __ 386 Brown, Eliza G. (13 P. D., 188)— 106 Brown, George M. (3 P. D., 29) 207 Brown, Isaac I*., alias Albert B. Cole (14 P. D., 375) 468 Brown, John (8 P. D., o. s., 60) 507 Brown, Minerva (11 P. D., 266) 438 Bruner, Bernard (3 P. D., 228) 307 Buck V. Buck (14 P. D., 150) 339 Budington v. Munson (33 Conn., 481) 470 Bullock V, Bullock (122 Mass., 3)__ 466 Burdette v. Burdette (14 P. D., 146) 233 Burnham, Cram v. (5 Me., 213) 351 Burnham, John (4 P. D., 93) 324 Burton, Jennette (9 P. D., 31 )_ 19,45,433 Bush, Sarah (9 P. D., 144) 380 Butler, .Jeremiah (7 P. D., 214) 74,78 Button and Strunk, Strunk v. (14 P. D., 17) 233,240 C. Cady, W. S. (5 P. D., 84) 451 Caldwell, Davenport v. (10 S. C, 317) 538 Calef, Commonwealth v. (10 Mass., 153) 87 Calvert, Floyd i\ (53 Miss., 37) 478 Camden v. Belgrade (78 Me., 204) __ 351 Campbell, Mark G. (8 P. D., 203) ___ 111 Carpenter v. Carpenter (30 Kans., 712; 46 Am. Rep., 108) 401 Carpenter, Alfred (11 P. D., 429) __ 451 Carter v. Carter (28 Me., 509) 351 Cassin, John H. (2 P. D., 376) 517 Cast V. Cast (1 Utah, 112) 102 Certain. Bates T. (13 P. D., 413) ___ 83 Chamberlain r. Chamberlain (74 N. Y., 423) 249 Chambers, Simon P. (6 P. D., 260) 253, 254. 392 Chandler, John M. (4 P. D., 276) __ 308 Page. Charmbnry, Executors of, Powers v. (35 La. An., 630) 345 Chase v. Webster (168 Mass., 228) _ 440 Cheever v. Wilson (6 D. C, 149) 161 Cheever v. Wilson (76 U. S., 123) __ 407 Chollar, Caroline (4 P. D., 103) 214 Christopher v. Christopher (13 P. D., 383) 134,340 Church-Peterson on Nervous and Mental Diseases : (p. 391) 544 (p. 415) 545 (pp. 421, 422, 423, 424) 545 Claflin and others v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. (110 U. S., 81) 34 Claw, Jackson v. (18 Johns., 346) __ 249 Clayton v. Wardell (4 N. Y., 230) __ 249 Clement v. Riley (,33 S. C, 66) __ 538, 539 Clements, Isaac, pension agent (5 P. D., 328) 154 Cleveland, Hunt v. (6 Pa. C. C, 592) 213 Cleveland, Andrew B. (12 P. D., 17) 257 Clevenger on Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity (v. 1, p. 393) 193 Clive, W^illiam (7 P. D., 119) 511 Coal Run Company v. Jones (127 111., 379) 45 Coffee, Flynn v. (12 Allen, 133) 441 Cole V. Cole (153 111., 585) 45 Coleman, William (8 P. D., 450) ___ 229 Collins, Jackson v. (2 Houston, 128) 528 Collins, Amy (12 P. D., 292) 179 Colvin V. Reed (55 Pa. State Reps., 375) 161,489 Commonwealth v. Calef (10 Mass., 153) 87 Commonwealth v. Elwell (2 Met., 190) 180 Commonwealth v. Harley (14 Gray, 411) 465 Commonwealth v. Ilayden (1895) (163 Mass., 453) 465 Commonwealth v. Johnson (10 Allen, 196) 465 Commonwealth v. Munson (127 Mass., 459) ^ 462 Commonwealth, The, Pruner t\ (10 Va. Law J., 520) 247 Commonwealth v. Thompson (11 Allen, 23) 441 Commonwealth Ins. Co., Claflin and others v. (110 U. S., 81) 34 Comstock, Harriet (10 P. D., 220) _ 555,557 Conover v. Conover (11 V. D., 525 )_ 369 Cook V. Cook (114 Mass., 163) 440 Cooper V. Cooper (17 Mich., 502; 97 Am. Dec, 182) 54 Cooper V. Cooper (13 P. D., 208) ___ 233 Cotton, Walton v. (19 How., 355) __ 109 Cowan, Franklin S. (7 P. D., 374) __ 78 Craig, Mary W. (13 P. D., 259)^ 105, 424, 427 Craiglow. Martha J. (7 P. D., 517)- 329 Cralle & Co., J. B., attorneys (5 P. D., 84) _— 451 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 77 Page Cram v. Biirnham (5 Me., 213) 351 Crane, Joseph (4 P. D., 358) 280 Croft, Simon v. (182 U. S., 427) ___ 474 Croft, Sarah (1 V. D., 279) 118 Cropsey v. McKinney (30 Barb,, 47- 55) 20,171) Crume i\ Crume (13 P. D., 424-427) 150 Cummings, William n. (IP. D., 351) 118 Cunningham v. Irwin (7 Sergt. and Rawle, 247) 140 Cunningham, Leckey v. (56 Pa. St., 370) 193 Curran, Jno. W. (5 P. D., 1)__'_ 264 D. Dailey, Daniel (4 P. D., 337) 308 Daily v. United States (17 Ct. CI., 144) 110 Dana, Diana M. (13 P. D., 272) 158 Daniel v. Sams (17 Fla., 487) 384 Daniel v. Simms (49 W. Va., 554) __ 34 Dasher, Mary (14 P. D., 257) 393 Daugherty v. Daugherty, alias Do- herty (13 P. D., 302) 123,140 Davenport v. Caldwell (10 S. C, 317) 538 Davidson, Christopher P., v. United States (21 Ct. CI., 298) 2 Davie v. Briggs (98 U. S. Reports, 535) 444 Davis V. Davis (2 Den., N. Y., 549) _ 176 Davis V. Davis (10 P. D., 236) 336 Davis V. Davis (10 P. D., 403) 135 Davis, Fox v. (113 Mass., 255) 440 Davis, Offield v. (40 S. E. Rep., 910) 447 Davis, William N. (7 P. D., 333)— 250, 253, 392 Da ya ne Ah Kee la nee gar (10 P. I)., 146) 200 Dennis, Annie (9 P. D., 243) 45 Dennison v. Dennison (35 Md., 361) 348 Derhammer, Anna (16 Fee P. L, B., 362) 274 Divoll V. Leadbetter (21 Mass., 220) 471 Dodge, Miller v. (28 N. Y., Misc., 238) 179 Doherty v. Doherty (13 P. D., 302 )_ 57 Donnelly v. United States (17 Ct. CI., 105) 110 Doolittle V. Doolittle (78 Iowa, 691- 694) 394 Drew, Kelly v. (12 Allen, 107) 441 Dudley, W. W. (6 P. D., 208) 62 Dunlap V. Byers (110 Mich., 109) __ 232 Durfey, Albert (20 Fee P. L. B., 436) 229 Dustin V. Dustin (13 P. D., 77) 57, 123, 139 Duval, James (9 P. D., 218) 324 E. Easley, Daniel M. (12 P. D., 179) __ 323 Eastridge, Mary E. (8 P. D., 5) 324 Eispinozer, State v. (20 Nev., 209) _ 342 Eldred v. Eldred (97 Va., 606) 448 Paga. lOldred, Williamsport r. (84 Pa. St., 429) 489 Ellis V. Ellis (11 P. D., 288) 369 Ellis, Eliza J. (12 P. D., 159) 348,446 Elwell, Commonwealth v. (2 Met., 190) 180 Endlich on Interpretation of Stat- utes : Sees. 127, 340 110 Sec. 367 34 Enfinger, John (13 P. D., 248) 105,424 English, Erwin v. (61 Conn., 602) __ 356 Erwin v. English (61 Conn., 602) __ 356 Eveland, Daniel (14 P. D., 40) 422 Eveland, Eliza .1. (14 P. D., 141)___ 325 Everett v. Morrison (69 Hun, 146) _ 471 Everman, Samuel (1 P. D., 418) 196 Eureka (4 Sawyer, 217, 302) 98 Ewing, Richard (8 P. D., 44) 2 F. Farrell, Edward et al. (7 P. D., 532) 75,346 Ferguson, Eugenie M. (387 L. B., 438) 97 BMnley, William ai P. D., 410) 2 Fisher v. Fisher (12 P. D., 336) ___ 123, 139, 387 Fisher, Hiles r. (144 N. Y., 306) ___ 386 Fishli V. Fishli (2 Litt. Ky., 337)— 46 Fleck, George W. (7 P. D., 343) __ 393,415 Fleener, Andrew J. (9 P. D., 133) __ 308 Fletcher's Equity IMeading and Prac- tice, pp. 591 and note 93, 714 and note 81 Floyd v. Calvert (53 Miss., 37)__- Flynn v. Coffee (12 Allen, 133) __. Forbin v. Forbin (13 P. D., 120) _. 148 478 441 19, 45, 233, 240 Foster v. Hawley (8 Hun, 68,72)— 249 Fox V. Davis (113 Mass., 255) 440 Fox V. State (3 Tex., 329) 180 Frank, Samuel D. (13 P. D., 362) __ 512 Freeman on Judgments (v. 1, sec. 271) 134 Fritsche, Caroline (8 P. D., o. s., 196) 24 Fuller, Sally A. (10 P. D., 238) 365 G. Gabriel, Francoise (12 P. D., 382) __ 345 Gall V. Gall (114 N. Y., 109)— 20, 179, 366 Garnett i;. Garnett (114 Mass., 347) _ 440 Gaskell, Lucinda (3 P. D., 87) 552 Geddings, Esther (36 Fee P. L. B., 374) 189 Gembe, Mary (13 P. D., 131) 291 Germain, Louisa C. (11 P. D., 66)— 433 Gibbs, Hultz v. (66 Pa. St. Rep. 360) 161 Gillespie, John, minors of (13 P. D., 280) 105, 110 Gilliland, Mary J. (13 P. D., 90)___ 158, 357, 433 78 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Glanbenkslee v. Low (29 111. Ap., 408) 295 Gleason, John H. (2 P. D., 106) 325 Goldenburg, United States r. (168 U. S., 95) 554 Graves v. Graves (108 Mass., 314- 320) 440 Graves, James R., minor of (13 P. D., 148) 7,431,434 Gray, Alice (7 P. D., 134) _, 88 Green, United States v. (98 Fed. Rep., 63) 19,235 Green, Ann (12 P. D., 306)___ 18, 179,366 Greenleaf on Evidence, v. 1 : Sees. 34, 35 158 Sec, 41 79,342 Sec: 48 (n) 76 Griffin r. Banks (24 How., 215)___ 20,179 Griffin, Margaret (11 P. D., 282) ___ 392 Groft i\ Groft (76 Ind., 136) 413 Grooms, Sarali J. (7 P. D., 207) 88,247 Grosse v. The City of Rochester (148 N. Y., 235) 386 Guthrie, Michael (40 Fee P. L. B., 299) 173 Hackey, William (7 1\ D., 212) 333 Hallett, Emma J. (13 P. D., 31)___ 110 Ham, Myers v. (20 S. C, 522) 539 Hammick v. Bronson (5 Day, 290 )_ 470 Hardenberger v. Hardenberger (14 Cal., 654) 406 Hardy, Calista M. (7 P. D., 391)___ 330 Harley, Commonwealth v. (14 Qray, 411) 465 Harris v. Harris (8 Brad., App. Rep., 57) 45 Harris v. Harris (8 111. App., 57) __ 445 Harris v. Harris (12 P. D., 7) 336 Harrison, James E. (7 P. D., 97 ; 9 P. D., 433) 118 Hasey, Myrick v. (27 Me., 17) 35 Hawksley, James H. (6 L. B. P.)___ 24,32 Hawley, Foster v. (8 Hun, 68, 72) __ 249 Hayden, Commonwealth v. (163 Mass., 453) 465 Hayden, Sarah C. (8 P. D., 364) _ 213,419 Hayes v. Hayes (13 P. D., 212) 387 Helmer, Henry A. (7 P. D., 376) ___ 507 (9 P. D., 130) ___ 118 Hendee v. The United States (124 U. S., 309) 516 Hendershott v. Hendershott (14 P. D., 130) 401,523 Hervey, Parton v. (67 Mass., 119) __ 459 Hetherington, Anna (10 P. D., 355)_ 326 Higgins, Annie (11 P. D., 519) 201 Hiles V. Fisher (144 N. Y., 306) 386 Hill, John J. (7 P. D., 142) 552 Hitchcock (2 W. Va., 435) 39 Hogg 1). Hogg (13 P. D., 206) 474 Holmes v. Holmes (6 La., 463) 345 Horton, Stephen (7 P. D., 369) 308 Houston, Yates v. (3 Tex., 433) 159 Page. Howard, Harriet D. (13 P. D., 448) _ 283 Howell, Rebecca C. (12 1'. D., 300) _ 213 Hoyt, Birney (1 P. 1)., 70) 324 Huber, Albert (8 P. D., 80) 329 Huddleston r. Askey (56 Ala., 218) _ 35 Hudson v. King (23 111. App., 118) _ 295 Hughes, Annie (8 P. D., 455) 538 Hughes, William H. (9 P. D., 152) _ 427 Hultz V. Gibbs (66 Pa. St. Rep., 360) 161 Human, Jefferson M. (12 P. D., 500) 76,255,285,392 Hunfs Appeal (86 Pa. St., 294)__ 213,419 Hunt V. Cleveland (6 Pa. C. C, 592) _ 213 Hunt, Lucy (9 P. D., 160) 480 Hunter v. Hunter (14 P. D., 136) __ 234, 385, 387, 404 Huntingdon, Teere et al. v. (22 How., 2) 342 Hutchins v. Kimmell (13 Mich., 126) 555 Hyatt V. Hyatt (14 P. D., 8) 120, 128, 240, 370 Hyatt, Frederick W. (14 P. D., 367)_ 482 Hynes v. McDermott (91 N. Y., 451) 249 Illingworth v. Bailey (33 111. App., 394) 295 Indiana, Adjutant-General's Re- ports (v. 1, p. 74) 382 Inhabitants of Twining, King v. (2 B. and Aid., 386) 356 Instructions to Commissioner of Pensions : (7 P. D., 240) 74 (9: 93) 435 (10: 465) 24 Irwin, Cunningham v. (7 Sergt. and Rowle, 247) 140 Jackson v. Claw (18 Johns., 346) __ 249 Jackson t\ Collins (2 Houston, 128)_ 528 Jackson v. Jackson (80 Md., 176) __ 533 Jackson v. King (4 Cowen, 207) 193 Jackson v. Van Dusen (5 Johnson, 144) 193 Jacob, George (7 P. D., 39) 70 Jacobson v. Miller (41 Mich., 90)___ 232 Jenkins, Newman t\ (10 Pick., 515)_ 441 Johns, Wm. B. (2 P. D., 393) 327 Johnson, Commonwealth v. (10 Al- len, 196) 465 Johnson v. Johnson (114 111., 611)_ 45,444 Johnson v. Johnson (1 Cold., 626) 471 Johnson v. Johnson (45 Mo., 595) __ 492 Johnson, George (13 P. D., 46) 393 Johnson, Gus (8 P. D., 463) 474,476 Jones V. Brown (2 Ex. Reports, Wellsby, Hurlstone, Gordon, 329) _ 35 Jones, Coal Run Company v. (127 111., 379) 45 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 79 Page. Jones V. Zoller (29 Hun., 551) 20,179 Jones, Moses G. (39 Fee P. L. B., 251) 229 Joyce, Olivia (7 P. D., 157) 274 Kelley, James H. (14 P. D., 104) ___ 423 Kelly V. Drew (12 Allen, 107)—'— 441 Kelly V. Kelly (18 Nev., 49) 402 Kendall v. Kendall (14 P. D., 159) _ 407, 489 Kennedy v. Kennedy (87 111., 250)-- 150 Kent, Fredericka (10 P. D., 211)— 77,429 Kenyon r. People (26 N. Y., 203)— 343 Kilbee, Rebecca (10 P. D., 286) 88 Kilburn, Williams v. (88 Mich., 279) 555 Kilmer v. Kilmer (13 P. D., 270) _ 372,482 Kimball, \yilliams v. (35 Fla., 49)— 384 Kimmell, Hutchins v. (13 Mich., 126) 555 King's Estate (9 Kulp., 54) 212 King, Hudson v. (23 111. Ap., 118)— 295 King V. Inhabitants of Twining (2 B. and Aid., 386) 356 King, Jackson v. (4 Cowen, 207)— 193 King, Turner v. (98 Ky., 253) 342 Kite, Alfred (9 P. D., o. s., 232) _— 325 Klein v. Laudman (29 Mo., 259)— 501 Knoop, C. F. (8 P. D., 435) 153 Knowles, Northrop v. (52 Conn., 522) 470 Knox V. Moore (41 S. C, 355) 539 Koch, United States v. (21 Fed. Rep., 873) 135 Krause, Anna S. (3 P. D., 243) 118 L. Lake, Louis S., widow of (2 P. D., Ill) 325 Lamb, John E. (8 P. D., 191) 70 La Mountain, John (11 P. D., 395) _ 153 Larned, Charles H. (7 P. D., 162)— 330 Laudman, Klein v. (29 Mo., 259) 501 Lawley, Lewis (14 P. D., 13) 297,299 Lawrence v. Nelson (85 N, W. Rep., 84) ^ 110 Lea V. Lea (99 Mass., 493)' 130, 134 Leadbetter, Divoll v. (21 Mass., 220) 471 Leckey v. Cunningham (56 Pa. St., 370) 193 Lee, William G. (6 P. D., 149) 421 Leigh ton, Catharine S. (7 P. D., 88)- 329 Leslie, Helen M. (6 P. D., 255) 327 Lester, Mary N. (12 P. D., 340)— 178,366 Limoges, Adolphus (9 P. D., 274)— 508 Livengood v. Livengood (13 P. D., 134) 316 Lockard v. Lockard (14 P. D., 45)- 130, 1.34 Lockhart v. White (18 Tex., 102)— 159 Loring v. Steineman (1 Met., 204)- 441 Loririg V. Thorndike (5 Allen, 257 )_ 460 Lott, Catherine (5 P. D.. 382) .333 Loughry v. Loughry (11 P. D., 523)- 370 Lovel. Jesse (3 P. D., 187) 308 Page. Low, Glanbensklee v. (29 III. Ap., 408) 295 Lowe, White r. (1 Redf., 376) 20,179 Luckingbeal, Judith S. (9 P. D., 42)_ 435 Lynch v. Lynch (13 P. D., 447) 233 Lynch, G. W. (14 P. D., 155) 287 M. McCabe, Rosalinda (5 L. B. P., 273)- 117 McCutchen v. McGahay (11 Johnson 281) 140 McDermott, Hynes v. (91 N. Y., 451) 249 McElroy, Alexander P. (9 P. D., 401) 526 McGahay, McCutchen v. (11 John- son, 281) 140 McGee, Brown v. (12 Bush., 428)— 475 McKee, Thos. W. (6 P. D., o. s., 83) -_ 507 McKinney, Cropsey v. (30 Barb., 47) 20, 179 McNealy, Henrietta J. (14 Fee P. L. B., 62) 189 McNeil, Mary E. (3 P. D., 26) 507 McPherson, William J. (5 P. D., o. s., 47) 82, 507 Mahone v. Mahone (19 Cal., 626; 81 Am. Dec, 91) 54 Mangue v. Mangue (1 Mass., 240) 457 Marden v. Boston (155 Mass., 359)— 441 Markwood, Robert (11 P. D., 380)— 40, 155, 420 Marshall, James M. (8 P. D., 395) __ 324 Marsteller, Jas. F., minor of (11 P. D., 55) 118 Martin v. Martin (13 P. D., 430) -__ 55, 193, 403 Martin, Jackson (7 P. D., 265) 324 Marvin, State v. (12 Iowa, 499)— 87,246 Mason v. Mason (101 Ind., 25) 471 Mason, Harrison H. (4 P. D., 244 )_ 511 Mathews, ex parte (22 Ala., 51) 34 Mavlty, John H., Ctf. 152,141 (vol. 446 P. L. B., 404) 270 Medley v. Medley (12 P. D., 490)— 316 Meese, Oscar (5 P. D., 122) 135 Meister v. Moore (96 U. S., 76, 78)- 449, 460 Melvin, Daniel V. (8 P. D., 89) 118 Mendon, Rutland v. (1 Pick., 155)— 34 Mercer v. Mercer (114 Ind., 558) 47 Meyers v. Pope (110 Mass., 314)_ 461,464 Milbourn, Chalkley, alias T. C. (2 P. D., 36) ^ 208 Mllford V. Worcester (7 Mass., 48) _ 458, 460, 463 Miller v. Dodge (28 N. Y., Misc., 238) 179 Miller, Jacobson v. (41 Mich., 90) __ 232 Miller, State v. (3 Pennewlll, 518) __ 528 Miller, Christian (4 P. D., 351) 511 Miller, Joslah C. (27 Fee P. L. B., 382) 229 Miner, Lydla A. (8 P. D., 104) 136 Minor V. Brown (133 N. Y., 308)— 386 Minor, Susan M. (8 P. D., 263) 427 80 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. I'age. Mitchell r. United States (88 U. S., 352) 407 MoCfatt V. Moffatt (5 Cal., 281)_^_- 406 Mohrstadt, Jolin C. (8 P. D., 413)— 8 Monroe, Elizabeth (3 P. D., o. s., 282) 449 Montgomery, Rudolph M., (3 P. D., 41) 307 Moore, Knox v. (41 S. C, 355) 539 Moore, Meister v. (96 U. S., 76)— 449,460 Moore, United States v. (95 U. S., 760, 763) ^ 98 Moore, William (12 P. D., 87) 171 Moors V. Moors (121 Mass., 232)— _ 440 Morris v. Morris (14 Cal., 76; 73 Am. Dec, 615) 54 Morris, John W. (2 P. D., 73) 364 Morrison, Everett v. (69 Hun, 146) _ 471 Mouat V. The United States (124 U. S., 303) 516 Mulick, John G. (12 P. D., 186) 79 Munson, Budington v. (33 Conn., 481) 470 Munson, Commonwealth v. (127 Mass., 459) 462 Murphey, James (42 Fee P. L. B., 353) 229 Myers v. Ham (20 S. C, 522) 539 Myrick v. Hasey (27 Me., 17) o5 N. Nelson, Lawrence v. (85 N. W. Rep., 84) 110 Newman v. Jenkins (10 Pick., 515) _ 441 Newman, Henry (8 P. D., 532) 118 Newman, Robert (6 P. D., o. s., 228) 117 Newton v. South worth (7 N. Y., 130) 248 Nicholas, Mary, widow of Francis Wallace (13 P. D., 286) 110 Nichols, Betty F. (13 P. D., 330)— 76,346 Nix, Jacob (4 P. D., o. s., 260) 250 Nook, Samuel (8 P. D., 367) 552 North, United States v. (112 U. S., 510) 327 Northey, Snow v. (19 L. D., 493)— 196 Northrop v. Knowles (52 Conn., 522) 470 Norton, John (9 P. D., 382) 326 Nunan, Bertles v. (92 N. Y., 152) __ 385 My land, Cornelia A. (3 P. D., o. s., 256) 24,33 O. Offield V. Davis (40 S. E. Rep., 910) _ 447 Ollendorf, Louis, minors of (8 P. D., 272) 200 Ott, Catherine (4 P. D., 47) 118 P. Parcell, Catherine (13 P. D., 450)— 63 Parker v, Parker (13 P. D., 233)— _ 57. 123, 136, 140 Parker, State v. (96 Mo., 383) 342 Page. Parker, Mary E. (11 P. D., 103) 118 Palmer, Adams v. (51 Me., 480) 351 I'arton r. Hervey (67 Mass., 119) 459 Passons, Andrew J. (8 P. D., 416) __ 105 I'ayne, Wilkinson r. (4 Term R., 468) 471 Peet V. Peet (52 Mich., 464) 555 Pegram, Rundle v. (49 Miss., 751) __ 47S People, Kenyon v. (26 N. Y., 203)— 343 People, Searles v. (13 111., 597) 87 People r. Baker (76 N. Y., 78) 176 Perkins, Harvey (13 P. D., 414) 429. 431, 434 Peterson, Daniel G. (13 P. D., 144) _ 380 Pettit, William F. (8 P. D., 306)— _ 333 Phipps, Eli, minors of (8 P. D., Ill) 24,36 Physick's Estate (2 Brewst., 179)— 212 Pick V. Pick (13 P. D., 299) 337 Pierce v. Pierce (12 P. D., 412) 57, 123, 139, 162, 406 Pierson, Allen B., minor of (13 P. D., 151) 7,430,434 Pinkey v. Pinkey (4 Green, 324) 394 I'ension Agent Clements (5 I'. D., 328) 154 Plount, Edward (13 P. D., 541)__ 429,434 Poor V. Poor (8 N. H., 307 ; 29 Am. Dec, 664-670) 54 Pope, Meyers v. (110 Mass., 314). 461,464 Porritt V. Porritt (18 Mich., 420- 424) 134 Potter V. Ranlett (116 Mich., 454 )_ 233 Potter's DWarris on Statutes and Constitutions, 144 526 Potter, Joseph M. (3 P. D., 82) 307 Potts-Gallaudet, Nervous and Mental Diseases : (p. 225) 544 (p. 426,430) 546 Powers V. Executors of Charmbury (35 La. Ann., 630) 345 Protector, The (12 Wall., 700) 78 Pruitt, John (9 P. D., o. s., 295)—- 118 Pruner v. The Commonwealth (10 Va. Law J., 520) 247 Pulver, Jonas W., minors of (10 P. D., 227) 429,434 R. Randall v. Randall (13 P. D., 411 )_ 122 Ranlett, Potter r. (116 Mich., 454). 233 Rathton, Nancy (9 P. D., 162) 259, 263, 393 Rebenstorf, Christenia, gdn. minor of John (15 P. D.) 434 Redgrave v. Redgrave (38 Md., 97) _ 349 Reed, ex parte (100 U. S., 13) 516 Reed, Colvin v. (55 Pa. St., 375) _ 161,489 Rich, Mollie (4 P. D., 234) 500 Richards v. Richards (11 P. D., 90 )_ 372, 482 Richardson v. Smith (80 Md., 189) _ 532 Richardson, Martin V. B. (1 P. D., 373) 511,514 Riley, Clement v. (33 S. C, 66)— 538,539 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 81 Page. Robinson, John S. (11 P. D., 390) __ 393 Rochester, The City of Grosse v. (148 N. Y., 235) 386 Rothery v. Rothery (11 P. D., 77, 377) 45, 55, 130, 134 Rothery, Henry N. (11 P. D., 255 )_ 372, 482 Ruch, Louis (1 P. D., 390) 325 Rudd V. Rudd (33 Mich., 101) 134 Ruddick, Lindley (10 P. D., 217)— 118 Rumsey, Hannah A. (14 P. D., 290) _ 455 Rundle v. Pegram (49 Miss., 751 )__ 478 Rutland v. Mendon (1 Picli., 155)— 34 S. Sams, Daniel v. (17 Fla., 487) 384 Sanders, Emma C. (11 P. D., 114)_ 460,464 Sargent v. Sargent (36 N. J. Eq., 644) 46 Schmisseur v. Beatrie (147 111., 210) 19,45,445 Schreve, Theresia (9 P. D., 78) __ 497,502 Sconey, James (1 P. D., 272) 325 Seaman, Benj. W. (9 P. D., o. s., 8)_ 117 Searles v. People (13 HI., 597) 87 Sell, Isaac (2 P. D., 177) 324 Semple v. United States (24 Ct. CI., 422) 110 Shafifer, James (5 P. D., 6) 307 Shannon, Andrew J. (7 P. D., 64) __ 515 Sharkey v. Sharkey (13 P. D., 297) _ 45 Sheldon v. Sheldon (13 P. D., 542) _ 152, 473 Sherman v. Sherman (13 P. D., 203)- 123, 139, 317 Shores r. Shores (23 Ind., 546)— _ 47,413 Siler, Isabel W. (10 P. D., 1) 19,45 Silman, James D. (12 P. D., 431)— 118 Simon v. Croft (182 U. S., 427) 474 Simms, Daniel v. (49 W. Va., 554) __ 34 Simpson, Darwin C. (8 P. D., 311 )_ 173 Smith, Richardson r. (80 Md., 189) _ 532 Smith V. Smith (55 N. J. Eq., 222) _ 46 Smith, Charles (28 Fee P. L. B., 419) 275 Smith, Robert A. (12 P. D., 141)— _ 118 Snow r. Northey (19 P. D., 493)— 196 Sousa, Elizabeth (12 P. D., 166) 2,225 Southwick V. Southwick (97 Mass., 327; 93 Am. Dec, 95) 54 Southworth, Newton v. (7 N. Y. State, 130) 248 Sparhark v. Sparhawk (114 Mass., 355) 440 Spencer, John (7 P. D., 152) 2 Spencer, Letitia C. A. (13 P. D., 68) 497,500 Spinney, Willard (7 P. D., 335) 118 Staiger's estate (7 D. R., 351) 212 Stakes, Geo. H. (4 P. D., 158) 308 State, Andre v. (5 Iowa, 389; 68 Am. Dec, 708) 342 State V. Eispinozer (20 Nev., 209)— 342 State, Fox v. (3 Tex., 329) 180 State r. Marvin (12 Iowa, 499) ___ 87,246 State V. Miller (3 Pennewill, 518)— 528 State V. Parker (96 Mo., 383) 342 13070—06 6 Page. State, Swartz v. (13 Ohio C. C. Rep.) 430 State V. Swope (11 Ind., 91) 34 State V. Wetherby (43 Me., 258) 351 State V. Whalley (10 S. C, 500) __ _ 539 Steineman, Loring v. (1 Met., 204 )_ 441 Stevenson, Susan (3 P. D., 171) 118 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce : Sec 125 158 Sec 257 134 Sec. 259 and n. 13, p. 7 524 Sec 345 158 Still, James (12 P. D., 25) 7,431,434 Stockbridge, pet. (145 Mass., 517)— 441 Strong, in re (86 Hun, N. Y., 390) _ 176 Strunk v. Button and Strunk (14 P. D., 17) 179,233,240 Sutherland on Statutory Construc- tion : Sec. 218 98 Sec 234 113 Sec 237 88 Sec 240 109 Sec 253 88 Sec 272 108 Sees. 283, 288 41 Sees. 307, 309 97 Sec 325 108 Sees. 368, 398, 399 110 Sec 420 34 Sutton, Alexander, minor sisters of (8 P. D., 137) 489 Swann, Margaret M. (8 P. D., 149) _ 410 Swartz V. State (13 Ohio C. C. Rep., 62) 430 Swope, State v, (11 Ind., 91) 34 T. Tallman, Evelyn S. (6 P. D., 261)— 327 Taylor v. Taylor (25 N. Y., Misc., 566) 20, 179 Taylor, David (16 P. D., o. s., 246) _ 273 Teberg, Peter J. (8 P. D., 224) 229 Teere et al. v. Huntingdon (22 How., 2) 342 Teller v. United States (107 U. S., 64) 110 Thomas, Peggy (13 P. D., 98)— 20, 24, 179 Thompson v. Thompson (114 Mass., 566) 462,466 Thomson, Commonwealth v. (11 Allen, 23) 441 Thorn, Graham (14 P. D., 249) 392 Thorndike, Loring v. (5 Allen, 257) _ 460 Toller, William, minors of (7 P. D., 545) 289 Tomson v. Ward (1 N. II., 12) 35 Treatise on Practice, Pension Bu- reau : Par. 5, p. 79 2 Pars. 7, 8, p. 85 152 Trickey, Hartwell, minors of (8 P. D., 84) 333 Trimble, Sarah, mother of George (7 P. D„ o. s., 303) 267,260 82 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Trout, John R. (11 P. D., 435) 263 Truce, Joab (3 P. I)., 14) 208 Tunison, Matilda C. (11 P. D., 440) 284 Turner r. King (98 Ky., 253) 342 Turner, Isaac (7 P. D., 523) 70 Tuttle, Josiali T. (3 P. D., 52) 552 Tuttle, Samuel (11 P. D., 278) 348 Tuxbury's appeal (67 Me., 267) 34 U. United States, Alexander v. (4 Ct. CI., 218) 34,110,111 United States, Byrnes v. (26 Ct. CI., 302) 516 United States, Daily v. (17 Ct. CI., 144) 110 United States, Davidson v. (21 Ct. CI., 208) 2 United States, Donnelly v. (17 Ct. CI., 105) 110 United States v. Goldenburg (168 U. S., 95) 554 United States v. Green (98 Fed. Rep., 63) 19,235 United States, Hendee v. (124 U. S., 309) 516 United States v. Kocli (21 Fed. Rep., 873) 135 United States, Mitchell v. (88 U. S., 352) 407 United States v. Moore (95 U. S., 760, 763) 98 United States, Mouat v. (124 U. S., 303) 516 United States v. North (112 U. S., 510) 327 United States, Semple t?.- (24 Ct. CI., 422) 110 United States, Teller v. (107 U. S., 64) 110 V. Valleau v. Valleau (6 Paige, 207) _ 20,179 Valentine, Barker v. (125 Mich., 336) 555 Van Dusen, Jackson (5 Johnson, 144) 193 Van Houten v. Van Houten (12 P. D., 157) 370 Veach, William H. (12 P. D., 273) __ 393 Viles, Mahala (12 P. D., 468) 438 W. Waddingham v. Waddingham (21 Mo. Ap., 609) 501 Wales V. Wales (119 Mass., 89) 440 Wallace, Francis, widow of (13 P. D., 286) 110 Wallace, John C. (33 Fee P. L. B., 13) 229 Walton t'. Cotton (19 How., 355 )_ 109, 110 Ward, Tomson v. (1 N. H., 12) 35 Warden, Clayton v. (4 N. Y., 230) __ 249 Wardwell v. Wardwell (14 P. D., " Tajje 234) 522 Warner v. Warner (54 Mich., 492) _ 55, 130, 134 Warner, Rachel (12 P. D., 266) 361 Washington, Patsey (8 P. D., 362 )_ 537 Waters, Catherine (9 P. D., 206) ___ .495 Watkins, Julia A. E. (10 P. D., 202, • 208) 552 Watson, John T. (12 P. D., 92) 171 Watt, Anderson v. (138 U. S., 706) _ 406 Webster, Chase r. (168 Mass., 22S)__ 440 Weddle, John R. (2 P. D., 97) 511 Welsh, William (4 P. D.. 279) 507 Wetherby, State v. (43 Me., 258) ___ 351 Whalley, State v. (10 S. C, 500) ___ 539 Wharton on Evidence, vol. 2, sec. 812 193 sec. 1245 158 sec. 1284 79 Wharton and»Stille's Medical Juris- prudence : Vol. 1, sec. 249 193 3:892 (p. 731) 552 Wheeler r. Wheeler (52 Iowa, 511 )_ 402 White, Lockart v. (18 Tex., 102) ___ 159 White i\ Lowe (Redf., 376) 20, 179, 376 White r. White (105 Mass., 327)— 180 White, Simeon (2 P. D., 210) 325 Whitehead, Malvin B. (7 P. D., 427) 329 Whitney v. Whitney (11 P. D., 301) 50, 130, 134 Wilds, William W. (11 P. D., 95)__- 550 Wiley, Rebecca (10 P. D., 304) 533 Wilkinson t\ I'ayne (4 Term R., 468) 471 Williams v. Kilburn (88 Mich., 279) 555 Williams r. Kimball (35 Fla., 49) __ 384 Williams r. Williams (46 Wis., 464) 19 Williams. Joseph C. (7 P. D., 218) __ 198 Williamsport v. Eldred (84 Pa. St., 429, 432) 161, 489 Willie V. Willie (14 P. D., 43) 240 Wilson, Cheever v. (6 D. C, 149)— 161 Wilson, Cheever r. (76 U. S., 123) __ 407 Wilson, Joseph I'. (11 P. D., 308) __ 153 Wilson, Mary A. (0 P. D., 222)___ 82, 5<>7 Wilson, Minna (11 P. D., 339) 24 Wilson, William (10 P. D., 232) ___ 155, 287, 324 Winkler, Anna M. (11 P. D., 241 )__ 425 Winkler, Zachariah (9 P. D., 172) 287, 421 Worcester, Milford v. (7 Mass., 48). 458, 460, 463 Worrell, Benjamin F. (6 P. D., o. s., 309) 117 Wykoflf, George E. (9 P. D., 52) 118 Y. Yant, John (1 P. D., 118) 118 Yates V. Houston (3 Tex., 433) 159 Z. Zerntlien r. Bram (100 N. Y., 12)— 386 Zimmerman, Sarah L. (8 P. D., 429) 333 Zoller, Jones v. (29 Hun, 551) 20,179 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. _ i i T ? X ^ or THE LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. | UNIVERSITY United States Statutes at Large. 1847, 1S55, 1SC2, 1864, 1865, 1866, 186-:;, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1878, 1870, 1 871), 1880, 188L', 1882, Page. February 11, succession 415 March 3, evidence, act of Janu- ary 20, 1887 350 July 14 : Enlistment, service 71 Minors ^-- 28 July 4, limitation 29 March 3, minors, limitation __ 29 June 6, minors deserted l)y widow 20 June 6, rerating 216 July 25, increase to minors 20 March 2, Division of Pension- 1 July 27 : Minors, five years' limitation 29 stepchildren 29 Widow, restoration 194 June 4, rating 185 March 3, minor, limitation 27 June 18, rate, act March 4, 1800 211 March 3, minors, limitation re- moved 30 June 17, total disability of both feet 524 January 25, arrears 30 March 3 : Minors, limitation 24, 30, 31, 33, 400 section 4702 35 June 16, increase 211 August 7, desertion, removal — 196 August 7, widows and minors : Adulterous cohabitation — Admissions 84 Evidence 242 Reputation, estoppel 469 Restoration, act March 3, 1901 ^ 362 Special examiners conduct 210 Marriage — Age 554 California laws 265 Cohabitation and repute — 417, 445, 456, 476 Connecticut laws 355 Delaware laws 527 Divorce — Act March 3, 1800 43 Act March 3, 1901___ 438,452 Decree, jurisdiction 173, • 279, 452 limitation 265 nisi 438 of nullity — - 265, 290 record of 535 res judicata 146 Utah, jurisdiction of probate courts 99 Estoppel 438 Page. 1882, August 7, widows and minors — Continued. Marriage — Continued. Evidence 17, 21, 156, 212, 290, 349, 355, 365, 417, 428, 438, 442, 456, 491, 530, 535, 537, 554 Florida laws, slaves 383 Illinois laws 442 Impediment 21, 38, 212, 242, 310, 340, 355, 365, 417, 428, 403, 554 Kentucky laws, slaves 474 Louisiana laws 21, 344 Legitimacy 428, 474 Maine laws 349 Maryland laws 347, 530 Massachusetts laws 438, 456 Michigan laws 417,554 Mississippi laws, colored _ 476 Missouri laws 491, 497 New York laws 173, 365 Ohio laws 428 Pennsylvania laws 212, 417 I'resumption 56,497,530 Presumption of death__ 438,442 South Carolina laws, slaves 537 Tennessee laws ■' 438 Texas laws, colored 156 Utah laws, divorce 99 Virginia laws 446 Washington laws 535 West Virginia laws 38 Widows title, act of June 27, 1890 347 1883, March 3, increase 184 1883, March 3 : I'ayment to wife, child, or parent 3 Soldiers' Home, Washing- ton, D. C 3 1884, July 4 : Attorneys, recognition 187 Fee, agreement, widow and minor 200 1884, July 5 : Desertion, removal 196 Faithful service, joint reso- lution of July 1, 1002__ 502 1885, March 3, contract surgeons 516 1886, March 19, service, marriage- _ 95 1886, May 17, desertion, removal 196 1886, August 4 : Amputation, rate 264 Increase, rerating 183, 215 1887, January 29 : Arrears, act of January 5, 1893 155 Commencement 40 Contract surgeons 517 84 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. .1887, January 29— Continued. Discharge evidence 197 Gray's battalion 285,420 Honorable discharge, special act 195 Service, teamster 357 1888, June 7, limitation removed, widows 30 1888, August 14, desertion, removal- 196 1899, March 2 : Desertion, removal 196 Volunteers, act June 27, 1890, constructive dis- charge 326 1890, March 4, Aid and attendance, commencement 209 1890, June 27 : Adulterous cohabitation 84 Attorneys — Election 269 Fee, renewal, increase. 256 Recognition 2«9 Service 228 Contract surgeons 515 Declaration — Amendment 434 Practice 426 Dependent parents 271, 294 Desertion, removal, joint resolution of July 1, 1902 502 Discharge — Honorable, pardon 352 Record 249 Without lionor 283,413 Drafted man 63 Fraud and mistake 57 Increase, commencement — 69 Joint resolution July 1, 1902— Bounty or gratuity _ 380, 466 Disloyalty, death prior to removal of bar_ 104, 422 Fee 276 Pardon 352 Service, last contract- 552 Limitation, commencement, orphan brothers and sis- ters 490 Marriage, see 1882, August 7, marriage. Medical examinations 450 Minors — Commencement 7 Declaration 7 Title, independent of mother 431 Presumption of death, evi- dence , 442 Special act, helpless minor. 331 Reimbursement 57 Service — Evidence, drafted man_ 63 Leave __ 257 Muster 249 Presumption 262 Record 249,388 Page. 1890, June 27 — Continued. Termination of war of re- bellion 71,326,346 Vicious habits 57 1891, March 3, Powell's battalion. 287, 420 1892, July 27 : Service — Evidence 296,408 Length of service, travel pay 494 Limitations 13 1893, January 5 : Increase — Commencement 41, 155 Cray's battalion.-- 285, 420 1893, December 21, vested right... 110, 31», 408 1895, March 2, accrued pension, joint resolution, 1002 105 1897, February 5, Gray's battal- ion 285,420 1898, May 4, navy pensions, divi- sion of pension 2 1899, March 3 : Appeal, practice 472 Attorneyship 130 Burden of proof 17 Character 177, 340 Desertion 10, 45, 130, 146, 159, 191, 230, 394, 404, 481, 489, 521 Evidence, reopening 334 Insanity 191 Laches 120, 127 Marriage and divorce 17, 43, 230, 235, 483, 521 Divorce, decree, res judicata 146 Naval Home 1 Practice ._„ 8, 127, 235, 313, 472 Reimbursement 367, 482 Special examination 338, 483 Special examiners.' 150 1900, April 23, increase, Mexican war . 40,288,420 1900, May » : Dependence 80,281,360 Divorce, decree, jurisdic- tion 1.79 1901, March 3 : Adjudication de novo 141, 213,318 Adulterous cohabitation 362 Declaration, decree nisi 440 Divorce 111,198,411,452 I'resuraption of death, estoppel 441 Dropping, section 4706, R. S 128, 194 Fraud or mistake, res judi- cata 141 Act December 21, 1893. 320 1902, June 27 : Limitation 13 Service, evidence 296,298 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 85 Page. 1902, July 1 : Joint resolution : Attorneys, recognition 276 Bounty or gratuity 466 Substitute, private con- tract 380 Desertion, removal 502 Disloyalty, death prior to removal of, bar 104, 422 Pardon, honorable discharge 352 1902, July 1 : Joint resolution- Continued. Service, last contract 552 1903, March 2 : Artificial limb 264 I'ractice 215 Iterating, commencement, act March 3, 1883 508 Total disability in both feet 524 Sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States. l»age. 1051, Length of service, Indian wars 495 1(551. Length of service, Indian wars_ 495 2418. Bounty land, lapse of title 416 4693, Service, muster 392 Contract surgeons 518 4698^, Increase, commencement, act June 27, 1890 69 4701. Length of service, Indian wars 410,495 4702. Line of duty, absence from command 114 Minors, commencement 31 4703. Special act. continuance 332 4704. Legitimacy, marriage, laws of Ohio 428 4705. Legitimacy 1__ 288 Marriage 24, 157, 437 4706. Restoration, act March 3, 1901 128, 194 Page. 4707, Dependent parents, abandon- ment 271 Means of support 267 Orphan brothers and sisters. _ 490 4709, Limitation, minors 31, 33 4713, Division of pension 2. 4715, Navy pensions 2 4716, See 1902, July 1, joint resolu- tion, disloyalty. 4718, Accrued pension 36 4719, Adjudication de novo 320 Remarriage, estoppel 469 Restoration 106 Vested right 110 4756, Division of pension 1 4757, Division of pension 1 Payment, jurisdiction 226 Reimbursement, overpayment, reduction 224 5597, Bounty land, lapse of title 416 State Statutes. Page. California, Laws of 1901, p. 335, marriage 266 Delaware : Constitution, Art. VII, 5 and 9. Laws of England, marriage — 527 Revised Code, chap. 74, sec, 2, Ibid — 528 Florida, acts of December 12 and 14, 1866, slave marriage 384 Illinois. Rev. Stats., chap. 68, sees. 5. 9. 11. 15. property rights, dower _ 294 Kentucky, act of February 14, 1866, marriage, legitimacy 475 Louisiana, Civil Code, art. 91, mar- riage 344 Maryland. Laws of 1867, marriage, colored persons 348 Massachusetts : Laws of 1870. chap. 404, decree nisi 440 Rev. laws. chap. 151, sec. 39, marriage 465 Stats, of 1840, chap. 84, and 1841, chap. 20, Ibid 461 Page. Mississippi, Const. December 1, 1869, art. 12. sec. 22. marriage 477 Missouri, act of February 20, 1865, marriage, slaves 491 New York, Rev. Stats., chap. 8, art. 1, sec. 6, V. 3, p. 2332, marriage-- 20, 177, 366 South Carolina, act of December 21, 1865 (13 Stat. L., 269), marriage of slaves 537 Texas, June 5, 1837 (art. 4670, Pas- chal's Annot. Dig.), marriage of ■ colored persons 157 Utah, act of March 6, 1852, divorce, probate court 99 Virginia, act of February 27, 1866 ; Code, sees. 2222, 2553, 2554, mar- riage 447 Wisconsin, Rev. Stats., sees. 2330, 2333, 2394, 4594, marriage, im- pediment 19 PENSION DECISIONS— VOLUME 15. TABLE OF CASES CITED. A. Page. Abston V. Abston (15 La. An., 137) _ 53.') Ackenback, George (7 P. D., 1G9)_ 162,547 Adair v. Mette (156 Mo., 406) 87 Adams v. Adams (12 P. D., 370)___ 98, 114, 135 Adams, Carmichael r. (01 Ind., 526) _ 280 Alexander, Enoch (11 I'. D.. 151)— 443 Allburn, Christena E. (13 P. D., 333) 230 Allbut's System of Medicine (1897)- 358 Allen, Downs v. (10 Lea, 652) 521 Allen V. Hall (2 N. & McC, 114) ___ 541 Allen, Osborn v. (2 Dutch., 388) _— 43 Alsup. Susan F. (14 P. D.. 404) 161 American and English Encyclopedia of Law : V. 10, 2 ed.. 32 461 V. 11, 2 ed., 300, and notes 1 and 2 560 V. 25, 2 ed., 1060, note 1 500 Anderson v. Mitchell (52 Ind., 502) _ 280 Anderson v. Watt (138 U. S., 604 )_ 461 Anderson. James W. (9 I'. D., 422) _ 27 Andrews v. Page (3 lleisk., 667)— 32 Andrews r. I'age (50 Tenn., 653) 510 Andrews v. Simmons (68 Miss., 732) _ 12 Armington, State v. (25 Minn., 20)- 230 Ashford v. Insurance Co. (80 Mo. Ap., 6,38) 87 Assistant Attorney-(ieneral, Interior Department (Dec. 1, 1804) 310 Atherton r. Atherton (181 U. S., 155) - 41 Atherton, Jennie (14 1'. D., 554) 240 Attorney-CJenerals Opinion, Mar. 17. 1848 (Mayo & Moulton, 454) 314 Attorney-General (7 Op., 140) (2 I'. D., 403) 55 Attorney-CJeneral (15 Op., 157) 73 B. Babbitt v. Babbitt (60 111., 277) 18 Bacon v. Bacon (43 Wis., 107) 472 Badger r. Badger (88 N. Y., 546) __ 200, 204, 410 Bailey, David J. (7 P. D., 173) 27 Ball, Robert II. (14 P. D., 228) 360 Ball, Tamezen (3 P. D., 183) 303 Page. Bannock. Dyer r. (66 Mo., 391) 87 Barber r. Barber (21 How., 582) ___ 461 Barker r. Dayton (28 Wis., 367)— 472 Barker r. Valentine (125 Mich., 336) _ 243 Barleyoung, John (7 P. D., 453) ___ 200, 282, 295 Barlow, Alfred (8 P. D., 282) 62 Barnum v. Barnum (42 Ind., 251) __ 470 Bartlett, E. W. (3 P. D., o. s., 240) _ 251 Bartlett. Sarah A. (15 P. D., 290) __ 468 Basing v. Basing (3 Sw. & Tr., 516) _ 91 Bay r. Doughty (4 Blackf., 115)—- 280 Beatrie, Schmisseur v. (147 111.. 210 )_ 187 Benkert r. Benkert (32 Cal., 467)— 91 Bennett r. Sloman (70 N. H., 290) _ 261 Benson, McCaffrey v. (38 La. An., ■ 198) - 534 Benson, McCaffrey r. (40 La. An., 10) 534 Benson, John (12 1'. D., 221) 274 Berlin, II. S. (attorney) (9 P. D., 471) 170 Bigelow on Estoppel (p. 46, 3d sub- division and notes) 558 Bird, Daniel (10 P. D., 104) 387 Bird. Nancy (14 P. D., 347) 465 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce : V. 1, sees. 279. 280. 283 145 sec. 1772 344 v. 2, sec. 225 129 457 231 Bishop on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation : V. 1, sec. 633 et seq 310 970 245 975 245 979 245 982 469 1714 461 1723 458 1724, notes 2 and 7 458 1727. note 4 458 1730 458 V. 2. sec. Ill 461 Black on Judgments, v. 2, sees. 333, 925 500 Black, United States v. (128 U. S., 40) 477 Blackman, (iholson r. (33 Tenn., 580) 516 86 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 87 Pajfe. Blake v. National Banks (23 Wall., 307, 319) 67 Blitch. Kathrlna (11 P. D., 247)— 107 Blanchard r. Lambert (43 Iowa. 228) 174, 245 Boniface, Polar Star Mutual Bene- fit Association v. (20 Weekly Dig., 522) 424 Boorman's Estate, Clarke r. (18 Wall., 493) 499 Boster, Bethany F. (15 P. D., 300) _ 448 Boulden ;?. Mclntire (119 Ind., 574) 231 Bowen, Ignited States r. (100 U. S.. 508) 314, .353 Bowles, Harvey (10 I'. D., 133) 73 Bowman i\ Bowman (14 P. D., 120)_ 98, 135, 344, 560 Boyd, Melissa (14 P. D., 279) 286, 462, 475, 503 Bradford, Thos. S. (8 P. D., 139) ___ 274 Brantigam, Maria (11 I*. D., 388) __ 142 Bremer r. Briggs (32 Ohio S., 473) _ 146 Briggs, Bremer v. (32 Ohio S., 473 )_ 146 Briggs, Davie r. (97 U. S., 628) ___ 4.3, 256, 348 Briggs. Henrietta (12 P. D., 479) __ 223 Britton, State v. (4 McC, 256) 541 Brobst r. Brobst (13 P. D., 218)— 249 Brockman, George E. (1 P. D., 453)_ 162 Bronson, Hammich r. (5 Day, 293 )_ 292 Broom and Hadley's Commentaries, V. 1, p. 74, Am. ed 168 Brothers r. State (42 Tenn., 201) __ 516 Brown r. Brown (15 I». D., 14) 94 Brown v. Cheatham (91 Tenn., 97) _ 503, 521 Brown v. .Tewett (18 N. H., 230) 260 Brown, Eliza J. (14 P. D., 106) 480 Brownsword v. Edwards (2 Ves. Sr., 243) 512 Bruening, State v. (60 Mo. App., 51)- 5.59 Budington r. Munson (33 Conn., 481) 292 Bunch, minor of Rabbitt (13 P. D., 368) 387 Bunker, Mooers v. (29 N. H., 341 )_ 261 Burdette r. Burdette (14 P. D., 14<>) 40,93,557 Burge, Col. and For. Laws 1, 152, 532 Burke, Fox v. (31 Minn., 319) 239 Burnham r. Burnham (14 P. D., 191) 454 Burns, Patrick H. (11 P. D., 332, 362) 73 Burton, Reuben (11 P. D., 294) 503 Bush, Sarah (9 P. D., 144) 73 Bushaw V. State (2 Yer., — ) 33 Bussi&re, succession of (41 La. An., 217) 535 Byrns v. Byrns (14 P. D., 404) 58,94 C. Page. 333 238 73 86 91 280 145 175 401 224 419 387 249 239 Caldwell, Davenport v. (10 S. C, 317) 411 Caperton, .Tames O. (15 P. D., 332) _ Carey, Hulett v. (66 Minn., 327, rep. in 69 N. W., 31) Carey. Stephen H. (6 1'. D., 42) Cargile r. Wood (63 Mo.. 501) Cargill V. Cargill (1 Sw. & Tr., 235) Carmichael r. Adams (91 Ind., 526) Carmichael v. State (12 Ohio. n. s., 5.53) Carroll r. Carroll (20 Tex.. 731) (20 Tex., 742) Cash V. Cash (67 Ark.. 278) Caujolle t'. Ferrle (23 N. Y., 90) Chambers, Patrick (14 I'. D., 474) _ Chapman r. Chapman ("707 I*. L. B.. 373) Charles v. Charles (41 Minn., 201 )_ Cheatham, Brown r. (91- Tenn,, 97) 50.3,521 Cherokee Nation t\ Georgia (5 Pet., 1) 283 Christopher v. Christopher (13 P. D., 383) 22,93 Church V. Grossman (49 Iowa, 444) _ 461 Claflin, United States v. (97 U. S., 456) Clapp, Potter r. (203 111., 592) Clark V. Boorman's Ex. (18 Wall.. 493) Clark V. Clark (14 P. D., 479)___ 453, .561 Clark, Forsaith v. (21 N. H., 409) __ 261 Clarke, Rose v. (8 Page, 575) 293,418 Claw, Jackson v. (18 .lohns., 346)_ 349,418 Clendenning v. Clendenning (3 Mar- tin U. S., 438) Clevenger on Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity : (V. 1, p. 49) (489, sec. 1) (557, note 5) (V. 2, p. 938) Clinton v. Clinton (60 Mo. App., 296) Coal Co. V. Jones (127 III., 379) ___ Cobb, Railroad Co. v. (35 Ohio S., 94) CoflFey v. United States (116 T'. R.. 443) Cole V. Cole (153 111., 585) Collector, The, Ilaaden v. (5 Wall., 107) Commonwealth v. Watson (97 Mass., 562) Communication : (Secretary Stuart) (1 L, P. B., 252) (Secretary Stuart) (2 L. P. B., 33) (Secretary McClelland) (4 L. P. B., 65) (Secretary Harlan) (5 L. P. B., 455) (Assistant Secretary Bussey) (4 P. D., 225) 73 436 187 499 537 456 457 456 457 458 187 146 559 187 67 85 62 62 62 62 " I'ress letter book. 88 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Coney, Angeline (7 P. D., 390) 36S Connor, Winship i\ (42 N. H., 341 )_ 261 Conover v. Conover (11 P. D., 524 )_ 114 Cook V. Cook (56 Wis., 197) 472 Cooley on Constitutional Limita- tions (400 and note 1) 239 Cooper V. Cooper (12 P. D., 163) __ 135 Cooper V. Cooper (13 P. D., 208) __ 41,93 Cooper, Chesley, minors of (8 P. D., 216) 359 Cooper, Warwick v. (5 Sneed, 660 )_ 32 Corte, Ellen (728 L. B. P., 68) 427 Cowan, Franklin S. (7 P. D., 374) __ 282 Craig, Mary W. (13 P. D., 259) 65 Crissey v. Crissey (14 P. D., 334) __ 134 Curd, McClintock v. (32 Mo. 411 )__ 457 Curran, John W. (5 P. D., 1) 405 Curtis, Samuel T. (14 P. D., 298) _ 53,131 D. Daniels, Harriet (14 P. D., 434) ___ 25 Darling, Elizabeth (10 P. D., 244) __ 195 Darling, Elizabeth (10 P. D., 299 )_ 172, 195 Davenport v. Caldwell (10 S. C, 317) 412 Davie v. Briggs, (97 U. S., 628) 43, 256, 348 Davies, Morris v. (5 CI. and Fin., 163) 425 Davis V. Davis (30 111., 180) 18 Davis V. Davis (10 P. D., 403) 135 Davis, Chauncey (10 P. D., 12) 334 Davis, John B. (L. B. "J," 1889) 303 Davis, Margaret A; (14 P. D., 408) _ 44 Davis, minors of John (9 P. D., 152) 384 Davis, Sellan v. (4 Yer., 502) 34 Davison, In re (21 Fed. Rep., 618) _ 520 Dayton, Barker r. (28 Wis., 367)— 472 De Amador, United States v. (16 N. Mex., 173) 393 Deering Harvester Co. v. Kelly (103 Fed. Rep., 261) 219 Demo V. Demo (14 P. D., 394,405). 458 Dennis v. Dennis (68 Conn., 186) __ 293 Dennis, Annie (9 P. D., 243) 175 Denny, Henry (12 P. D., 226) 550 Dick, Iloltz r. (42 O. S., 23) 22G Dilworth, Emily O. (11 P. D., 459) _ 142 Dingle v. Mitchell (20 S. C, 202) __ 412 Divoll V. Leadbetter (21 Mass., 220) 146 Dixon r. People (18 Mich., 84) 231 Dobbs, Elisha, minor of (15 P. D., 488) 548 Doughty, Bay v. (4 Blackf., 115) __ 280 Douglas, minors Geo. W. (11 P. D., 448) 384 Downs V. Allen (10 Lea, 652) 521 Doyle, State v. (68 Mo. App., 219) _ 559 Drake, Sarah, mother (785 P. L. B., 121) 501 Draper, Mary E. (14 P. D., 456) __ 292, 463 Driskill, Fleenor v. (97 Ind., 27)___ 390 Dunn, Frederick (13 P. D., 422)____ 344 Dunn, Mollie (widow) 490 Page. Durham, Jennings v. (101 Ind., 391) 280 Durkee, James J. (8 P. D., 152) 487 Dyer r. Bannock (66 Mo., 391) 87 E. Eaton, Chas. A. (15 P. D., 232) 549 Edwards, In re (58 Iowa, 431) 176 Edwards, Brownsword v. (2 Ves. Sr., 243) 512 Eisenlohr, O'Gara v. (38 N. Y., 296) _ 416 Elliott f. Elliott (14 P. D., 472) 220 Elliott, John, widow of (15 P. D., 23) 130 Elliott, Mary A., widow of John (15 P. D., 23) 130 Ellis V. Ellis (58 Iowa, 720) 174 Elwell V. State (6 Yer., 364) 33 Emmett v. Emmett (14 Lea, 371 )__ 32 Encyclopedia of I'leading and Prac- tice : (v. 2, pp. 492, 493, 495) 219 (V. 2, p. 67) 472 (v. 13, p. 882) 511 Enflnger, John (13 P. D., 248) 65 Engle, minors of Richard (152 L. B. P., 270: 208 L. B. P., 183) 384 English, R. G. (11 P. D., 177) 126 Estate of Jennings (4 Month. L. Bui., 40) 294 Evans v. Reynolds (32 Ohio S., 163) _ 146 Fagan v. Fagan (32 N. Y. St. Rep., 994) 416 Falls, Lapresse r. (7 Ind., 692) 280 Fane, Amanda (10 P. D., 254) 503 Farrell, Edward (7 P. D., 532)___ 198,282 Fenton v. Reed (4 Johns., 51, 52) __ 245, 293, 415 Ferrie, Caujolle v. (23 N. Y., 90)___ 419 Fleagle r. Fleagle (12 P. D., 56) ___ 114 Fleenor r. Driskill (97 Ind., 27) 390 Florence, In re (54 Hun, 328) 462 Flowers V. Haralson ( — Yer., 494) _ 35 Flynn, Ellen (8 P. D., 54) 306 Forbin v. Forbin (13 P. D., 20) 249 Fordham v. Gouverneur Village (39 N. Y. Supp., 396) 208,293,418 Fornshill r. Murray (1 Bland, 479) _ 512 Forsaith v. Clark (21 N. H., 409) _— 261 Foster v. Hawley (8 Hun., 68)—— 415 Fox V. Burke (31 Minn., 319) 239 Fox, Cora B., minor Thos. J. (12 P. D., 102) 224,490 Fox, Thos. J., minor of (12 P. D, 102) 224,490- Frank, Hendricks v. (86 Ind., 278)— 280 Franklin r. Lee (30 Ind. Ap., 31)— 230 Freeman on Judgments : Sec. 45 390 Sees. 257, 258, 271 560 Freight Association, U. S. v. (166 U. S., 290, 318) 67 Frisbe v. United States (157 U. S., 166) 185. Fryer v. Fryer (Rich. Eq. Ca., 85)— 541 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 89 G. Pagei Gaines t: Hennen (65 U. S., 553) ___ 536 Gaines, Patterson (47 U. S., 550) __ 536 Gaines v. Relf et al. (53 U. S., 472) _ 537 Gall r. Gall (114 N. Y., 109)_ 210, 293.410 Garrison, Pence v. (93 Ind., 345) __ 280 Gates, Johanna (10 P. D., 28) 325 Gee, Cora, now Stol worth (14 P. D., 413) 326 Gembe, Mary (13 P. D., 460) 286,510 Georgia, Cherokee Nation r. (5 Pet., 1) ■ 283 Georgia, Worcester v. (6 Pet., 515) _ 283 Gholson r. Blackman (33 Tenn., 580) 516 Gibson, Suits in Chancery : Sec. 130 511 Sec. 133 514 Sees. 876 and 887, note 6 515 Gilbert, Margaret (8 P. D., 249) ___ 503 Giles r. Little (104 U. S., 291) 499 Giles, Cyrenius (6 P. D., o. s., 235) _ 47,48 Gillespie, John, minors of (13 P. D.. 280) 73 Gilliland, Mary J. (13 P. D., 90) __ 45,224 Gillinwaters v. Gillinwaters (28 Mo.. 60) 458 Gill, In re (20 Wis., 686) 472 Gilman v. Sheets (78 Iowa, 499) 174 Gloyd, Melcenia E. (7 P. D., 413) __ 326 Goodrich, PingrSe v. (41 Vt., 47) 512 Gouverneur Village, Forhham v. (39 N. Y. Supp., 396) 208,293.418 Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., Parsons V. (108 Iowa, 6) 174 Grant v. Grant (12 S. C, 30) 543 Grant v. Grant (740 P. L. B., 397 )_ 249 Graves, minors of James R. (13 P. D., 148) 384 Greenleaf on Evidence (1, sec. 537)- 558 Gi-eensbo rough v. Underbill (12 Vt., 604) 231 Griffin, Lake Erie, etc., Ry. v. (92 Ind., 487) 280 Griffin, Jas. M. (8 P. D., 57) 27 Guernsey, Charles F. M. (715 L. P. B., 218) 339 H. Hadden v. The Collector (5 Wall., 107) 67 Hagerty, William H. (10 P. D., 359) 73 Hall, Allen v. (2 N. & McC, 114) __ 541 Hall, Leach i?. (95 Iowa, 611) 174 Hall. Laura (9 P. D., 439) 306 Hallett, Emma J. (13 P. D., 1) 388 Hamilton v. Rathbone (175 U. S.. 419) 66 Hammich v. Bronson (5 Day, 293)— 292 Haney. Zwickey v. (63 Wis., 464) __ 473 Harris v. Harris (8 111. App., 57). 187, 231 Harris, Hinks v. (4 Mod., 182) 512 Harrison, Swan v. (2 Cold., 535) ___ 514 Hawkins, Lettie (8 P. D., 22) 465 Hawley, Foster v. (8 Hun, 68)' 415 Hayes v. Hayes (13 P. D., 212) __ 135, 222 Page. Hays, United States v. (20 Fed. R., 710) 245 Hays, Rachel (15 V. D.. 186) 293 Heinz, John (10 1'. D.. 289) 501 Ileming v. Price (12 Mod.. 432) 512 Heminway v. Miller (87 Minn., 123, rep. in 91 N. W., 428) 238 Hendricks v. Frank (86 Ind., 278) __ 280 Hennen, Gaines r. (65 U. S., 553) 536 Henry, Red Rock v. (106 U. S., 596) _ 436 Hetherington, Anna (10 I*. D.,355)_ 526 Higgins, Annie (10 P. D., 110) 465 High on Extraordinary Legal Reme- dies (sec. 130) 477 Hill, Camden L. (14 P. D., 57) 486 Hilton, State r. (3 Rich., 434) 541 Hinks r. Harris (4 Mod.. 182) 512 Iloh r. Hob (84 Wis., 378) 473 Holbrook r. State (34 Ark., 511) ___ 224 Holtz r. Dick (42 O. S.. 23) 226 Hopkins v. Hopkins (39 Wis., 167 )_ 472 Hopkins, Smith r. (120 Fed. Rep., 921) 219 Houston, Yates r. (3 Tex., 433) 175, 231, 245, 400 Howard, Harriet D. (13 P. D., 448) _ 205 Howard, minors of Lafayette G. (8 P. D.. 230) 384 Hubbard v. Hubbard (19 Colo.. 13) _ 556 Ilubbell r. Inkstein (7 La. An., 252 )_ 534 Hughes, Annie (8 P. D., 455) 476 Hulett V. Carey (66 Minn., 327, rep. in 69 N. W., 31) 238 Hunt, Martha A. (L. B. " U," 1890) _ 303 Human, Jefferson M. (12 P. D.. 500) 234 Hunter v. Hunter (14 P. D., 136) __ 240. 248. 459. 499 Hutchinson v. Hutchinson (196 111.. 432) 191 Hyatt V. Hyatt (14 P. D., 8) 84, 98, 114, 220, 560 Hyatt, Frederick W. (14 P. D., 367 )_ 97 Hynes v. McDermott (91 N. Y.. 451) 210. 245, 293, 413 I. Inghams, Hester A. (13 P. D., 173 )_ 387 Insurance Co., Ashford v. (80 Mo. Ap., 638) 87 Isk, Thompson r. (99 Mo., 106) 456 Israel v. .Tudson (95 Ind.. 543) 280 Inkstein. Hubbell r. (7 La. An., 252) 534 J. Jackson v. Claw (x8 .Johns., 346) _ 349,418 Jarnigan r. Jarnigan (12 Lea.. 293 )_ 30 Jarvis v. Jarvis (3 Edward, ch. 462) 472 .Tennings t;. Durham (101 Ind.. 391)- 280 Jennings, estate of (4 Month. L. Bui., 40) 294,424 Jermann v. Tenneas (39 L. An., 1021) 534 90 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Jetmore, Waymire v. (22 O. St.. 271) 308 Jewett, Brown r. (18 N. H., 230) __ 260 John, Offut V. (8 Mo., 120; 40 Am. Dec, and note) 560 Johnson r. Johnson (1 Cold., 626) _ 36 Johnson r. Johnson (147 111., 611) _ 187 Johnson r. Johnson (4 Wis., 135) 472 Johnson r. Schloesser (146 Ind., 509) 390 Johnson, Sharp r. (22 Ark., 79) 224 Johnson, John L. (14 I'. D., 296) 53,131,398 Jones r. Jones (28 Ark., 19) 490 Jones r. Jones (13 P. D., 521) 94 Jones, Coal Co. r. (127 111., 379) 187 Judson, Israel r. (95 Ind., 543) 280 K. Kaufman, Daniel B. (3 I'. D., 137)- 73 Keels Estate (30 W. N. C, 419) 495 Kelly, Deering Harvester Co. r. (103 Fed. Rep., 261) 219 Kelsey, Cyrus J. (753 L. B. I\, 63) _ 301 Kendall r. Kendall (14 P. D.. 159) _ 94 Kennedy r. Kennedy (87 111., 250) _ 18 Kerren, Matilda (7 I'. D., 443)___ 314,351 Kersey, Sarah A. (6 P. D., 1) 341 King's Heirs, McCorry v. (13 Hum., 267) 32 Klein v. Landman (29 Mo., 259) __ 231 Knappenberger, Caroline (3 P. D., 263) 337 Knowles, Northrop r. (52 Conn., 522) 292 Knowlton. Smith v. (11 N. H., 191) 260 L. Lake County r. Rollins (130 U. S., 662) 66 Lake Erie, etc., Ry. r. Griffin (92 Ind., 487) 280 Lambert, Blanchard r. (43 Iowa 228) 174 Lampkin r. Insurance Co. (11 Colo. Ct. of Ap.. 249) 256 Lancaster, Ignited States i\ (2 Mc- Lean. 431) .347 Land r. Land (206 111., 288) 193 Lapresse r. Falls (7 Ind., 692) 280 Laraway, Annie E. (14 P. D., 212) _ 495 Landman, Klein r. (29 Mo., 259) ___ 231 Laughlin, John (9 P. D.. 466) 85 Lawley, Lewis (14 P. D., 13)_ 53,131,398 Lea r. Lea (99 Mass., 493: 96 Am. Dec, 772 and notes) 560 Leach r. Hall (95 Iowa. 611) 174 lieadbetter, Divoll r. (21 Mass., 220) 146 Lee. Franklin r. (30 Ind. Ap., 31)__* 230 Linck. State r. (68 Mo. App., 161 )_ 559 Little, Giles r. (104 I'. S.. 291) 490 Livengood r. Livengood (13 P. D., 134) 6, 134, 147 liivingston, Summerlin c. (15 La. An., 519) 535 Page. Lockhard r. Lockhard (14 P. D., 45) 458 Lockhart v. White (18 Tex., 102) ___ 400 Loeb, Nathan, alias Nathan Lyon (11 P. D., 286) 526 Loomis, Charles T. (5 P. D., 35) 569 Lott, Catherine (5 P. D., 382) 80 Loughry r. Loughry (11 P. D., 523 )_ 114 Lufkin r. Lufkin (182 Mass., 476) __ 462 Lutes, Nettie C. (14 P. D., 281) 205 I-ynch r. Lynch (13 P. D., 447)—- 93 Lyons, Emily J. (261 L. B., 288) ___ 547 M. McBride, Anna L. (9 P. D., 338) 318 McCaflfrey r. Benson (38 La. An., 198: 40 La. An., 10) 534 McCarty, Maria (10 P. D., 118, 123) 145,465 McCIintock v. Curd (32 Mo., 411) __ 457 McCollum, Mary B. (6 P. D., 93)- 186, 194 McCorry v. Kings heirs (3 Hum., 267) 32 McCraney (5 Iowa, 232 ; 6 Am. Dec, 702) 344 McDerraott, Hynes v. (91 N. Y., 451) - 210, 245, 293, 413 McDonald, Julia G. (4 P. D., o. s., 467) 562 McGown, Cartwright v. (121 111., 388) 186 McGrady r. McGrady (40 Mo. App., 668,677) 458 Mclntire, Boulden r. (119 Ind., 574) 231 McLauchlan r. McLauchlan (1 Scotch Sess. Ca., 2d series, 294 )__ 91 McReynolds v. State (5 Cold., 630 )_ 33 McReynolds r. State (45 Tenn., 18)- 519 Macentee, John J. (12 P. D., 464)— 56 Madden, Michael, minors of (7 P. D., .34) 562 Maddox, Martha (12 P. D., 447)— _ 387 Madison, Marbury v. (1 Cranch U. S., 1.37) 477 Mallison r. Mallison (L. R., 1 P. and D., 93) 91 Manning r. Spruck (199 111., 447) _ 186, 191 Manson, Allbut's System of Medicine (1897) .358 Manson, Tropical Diseases (1900)-- 358 Marbury /•. Madison (1 Cranch U. S.. 1.37) 477 Marcadf, Explication du Code Napo- leon : (tome 1, 520) 532 (tome 1, 525) 534 Martin r. Martin (13 P. D., 4.30) _- 86 Maskall v. Maskall (3 Sneed, 208) _- 514 Mathers, Sarah (14 P. D.. 318) 382, 476, 483 Matson, Eliza (15 P. D., 47) 524 Maxwell on Interpretation of Stat- utes (179) ,-- 72 Maxwell, United States Trust Co. r. (57 N. Y. Supp., .53) 416 Mayhew, Taylor v. (11 Ileis., 596 )-_ 516 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 91 Page. Medley v. Medley (12 P. D., 490) ___ 134 Meeker, John H. (10 P. D., 182) ___ 73 Meister r. Moore (96 U. S., 76) 145 Mellen, Stella (15 P. D., 459) 509 Mette, Adair v. (156 Mo., .496) 87 Mexican War Treaty (P'eb. 2, 1848) 313 Miller, (9 N. Y. Supp., 639) ___ 349 Miller, Ilerainway r. (87 Minn., 123, rep. in 91 N. W., 428) 238 Miller v. Miller (150 Mass., 111)___ 93 Miner, Lydia M. (8 P. D., 104) 110 Mitchell, Anderson v. (52 Ind., 592) 280 Mitchell, Dinj?le r. (20 S. C, 202)__ 412 Mitchell r. United States (88 U. S., 352) ^ 58 Monholland, Frances A. (7 P. D., 494) 509 Monthony, Stephen F. (11 P. D., 193) 8 Mooers v. Bunker (29 N. H., 341 )__ 261 Moore, Meister v. (96 U. S.. 76) 145 Moore v. Moore (102 Tenn., 148) 33 Morley r. Morley (14 P. D., 230) __ 40, 93, 557 Morrill, Emma A. (14 1'. I)., 310) __ 505 Morris v. Davies (5 CI. and Fin., 163) 425 Morris, Elwood (9 P. D., 353) 409 Muir V. Muir (6 Scotch Sess. Ca., 4th series, 1353) 91 Muller, Marie D. (15 P. D., 94) 277 Munson, Budington t\ (33 Conn., 481) 292 Munson, Charles W. (8 P. D., 386) _ 318 Murray, Fornshill v. (1 Bland, 479) 512 Muse, Robert W. P. (2 P. D., 180) __ 161 N. National Banks, Blake v. (23 Wall., 307, 319) 67 Nelson on Divorce and Separation (vol. 2, sec. 568) 511 Nichols, Betty F. (13 P. D., 330) ___ 198 Nichols, Mary (13 P. D., 286) 480 Nixon i\ Wichita Land and Cattle Co. (87 Tex., 411) 401 Noble, Mary E. (14 P. I)., 538) 280 Noff r. Noff (20 Mo. Appeals, 182) _ 458 North r. North (1 Barb. Ch., 241 )__ 245 Northrop r. Knowles (52 Conn., 522) 292 Norton, John (9 P. D., 382) 73 Nutt V. Nutt (14 P. D., 313) 22 O. Ofifut V. John (8 Mo., 120; 40 Am. Dec, and note) 560 O'Gara i'. Eisenlohr (38 N. Y., 296) _ 416 Oliver, David (7 P. D., 390) 368 Order No. 60 (Nov. 5, 1901) 274 Osborn v. Allen (2 Dutch., 388) 43 Osier on Practice of Medicine (pp. 176, 178) 316 Owen V. Sims (3 Cold., 549) 514 Page. 32 519 P. Page, Andrews v. (3 Heisfc., 667 )_ Page, Andrews i\ (50 Tenn., 653) Park, Lessees of, Rogers v. (4 Hum., 480) 33 Parsons v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W^ (108 Iowa, 6)___" 174 Patterson r. Gaines (47 IT. S., 550) _ 536 Patterson, Frances A. (12 P. D., 29) 185 Patterson, Obed A. (8 P. D., 452) __ 318 Patton r. Philadelphia (1 La. An., 100) .537 Peace, Daniel (747 L. B. P., 159) __ 410 Pence v. Garrison (93 Ind., 345) 280 Peniston, Susan C. (9 1'. I)., 178) __ 27 People, Dixon r. (18 Mich., 84) 231 People. Poole v. (24 Colo. Rep., 510) 254 People r. Taber (92 N. Y., 146) 414 Pepper, Helen L. (9 P. D., 500) 347 Perkins, Harvey, minors of (13 P. D., 414) 489' Phelan v. Phelan (12 Fla., 449) 472 Phelan v. I'helan (135 111., 511) 18 Pierce v. Pierce (12 I\ D., 412) 18,94 Pierson, minors of Allen B. (13 P. D., 151) 384 Plount, Edward, minor of (14 P. I)., 428) _■ ^___ 30,488 Pingree v. Goodrich (41 Vt., 47) 512 Polar Star Mutual Benefit Associa- tion V. Boniface (20 Weekly Dig., 522) 424 Pomeroy et al., Tayler v. (8 Allen, Mass., 488) 233 Pomeroy, Fanny (i. (13 I'. D.. 342 )_ .306 Poole V. People (24 Colo. Rep., 510) 254 Post V. Post (14 P. D., 177 > 138 Potter's Dwarris on Statutes and Constitutions : (p. 194, note 13) 67 (p. 203, note 20» 73 (p. 74, note 4) 73 Potter V. Clapp (203 111., 592) 187 Powell V. Powell (18 Kans., 371) __ 473 Powell v. Powell (13 P. D., 236) 93 Powers, Mary E. (9 I'. D., 369) .546 Price, Heming v. (12 Mod., 432) ___ 512 B. Rafter; Mary, et al., minors of Michael Madden (7 P. D., 34)___ 562 Railroad Co. i'. Cobb (35 Ohio S., 94) 146 Raish, Tuttle v. (116 Iowa, 331) 174 Randall v. Randall (13 P. D., 411)_ 98,560 Rankin, I^ewis (11 P. D., 373) 73 Ransom, Albert K. (5 P. D., 183) __ 340 Ratcliflfe, Kathryne A. (11 P. I).. 171) 18,100,106,173,194 Rathbone, Hamilton v. (175 U. S., 419) 66 Rawson v. Rawson (156 Mass., 578) 513 Rebenstorf, Christenia (15 P. D.. 28) 384 Records of War of Rebellion (series III, v/ 3, pp. 123, 661) 297 Red Rock v. Henry (106 U. S., 596 » 436 &2 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. Redbird, Jack, minor of (12 P. D., 517) , 284,380 Reed, Fenton v. (4 Johns., 51, 52) __ 245, 293, 415 Reed, Rebecca (13 P. D.,. 70) 386 Reese, Joseph A. (731 P. L. B., 238) 265,302 Reese, Sarah I. (7 P. D., 368) 62 Relf et al., Gaines v. (53 U. S., 472) 537 Rex v. Twining (2 B. and Aid., 386) 231, 262 Reynolds, Evans v. (32 Ohio S., 163) 146 Richardson, Nathan (15 P. D., 76) _ 360 Ridenour, Newton C. (2 P. D., 348) _ 251 Robinson v. Ruprecht et al. (191 111., 424) 189 Rodgers v. The United States (185 U. S., 87) 436 Rogers v. Lessees of Parli (4 Hum., 480) 83 Rogers, Williams (9 P. I)., 399) 334 Rollins, Lake County v. (130 V. S.. 662) 66 Rose V. Clarke (8 Paige. 575) 293,418 Rose V. Rose (67 Mich.. 619) 243 Rothery v. Rothery (11 I\ D.. 77, 377) 86,344,451,559 Rumsey, Hannah A. (14 P. D., 290) 45,229,509 Ruprecht et al., Robinson r. (191 111., 424) 189 Russ, Mary W. (7 P. D., 382) 27 Ryerson, Annie P. (14 P. D., 497) __ 249 8. Sanborn and Berryman's Annotated Statutes of Wisconsin (1889, sec. 2359, p. 1.368) 472 Schafberg v. Schafberg (52 Mich., 429) 473 Scheube. Diseases of Warm Coun- tries 358 Schlichter v. Schlichter (10 Pa.. 11) _ 472 Schloesser, Johnson r. (146 Ind.. 509) 390 Schmisseur r. Beatrie (147 111.. 210) 187 Schoonover, .John H. (8 P. D., 10) __ 318 Schouler's Domestic Relations : Sees. 37, 38 .17 Sec. 237 84 Sec. 224 388 Schuchart r. Schuchart (61 Kans., 587) 214 Schweitzer, State r. (57 Conn., 532 )_ 292 Scott, Stringfellow v. (Rich. Eq. Ca., 109) 541 Sedgwick on Construction of Statu- tory and Constitutional Law (195) 66 Sellan v. Davis (4 Yer., 502) 34 Sexton, Fieldon (15 P. D., 265) 302, 333. 334 Shafher r. State (20 Ohio, 1) 226 Shanaman, Amelia K. (14 P. D., 530) 465 Shannon's Code, Tennessee, sees. 4201, 4218 50S Shannon, Andrew J. (7 P. D., 64)__ 368 Sharer, David S., minors of (9 P. D., 189) 80 Sharp V. Johnson (22 Ark., 79) 224 Shattuck, .Joseph (7 P. D., 54) 546 Sheets, Oilman v. (78 Iowa, 499) 174 Sheldon r. Sheldon (13 P. D., .542). 15 Simmons,. Andrews v. (68 Miss., 732) 12 Simmons r. Simmons (47 Mich., 253) 556 Sims, Owen v. (3 Cold., 549.) 514 Slagle r. Slagle (11 P.'D., 260) 343 Sloman, Bennett (70 N. H., 290) ___ 261 Smith r. Combs (4 Dick., 420) 43 Smith V. Hopkins (120 Fed. Rep., 921) 219 Smith V. Knowlton (11 N. H., 191)- 260 Smith V. Smith (4 R. I., 370) 85 Smith V. Smith (13 P. D., 177) 18 Smith r. Smith (43 La. An., 1140)__ 534 Smith, Joseph K. (8 P. D., 9) 326 Smith, Susan (12 P. D., 180) 478 Snowman, Charles W. (12 P. D.. 118) 61 Spelling on Injunctions and Other Extraordinary Remedies (v. 2, ch. 43, sees. 1380, 1433) 477 Spencer. Letitia C. A. (13 P. D., 68) _ 249 Spurck. Manning r. (199 111., 447 )_ 186 Squire v. State (40 Ind.. 459) 231 Stewart v. Vandervort (34 W. Va., 524) 449 Still, minors of James (12 P. I).. 25 )_ 384 Stack, mother of John G. (2 P. D., 153) .306 State V. Armington (25 Minn., 29) _ 239 State r. Britton (4 McC. 256) 541 State, Brothers r. (42 Tenn., 201 )_ 516 State V. Bruening (60 Mo. App., 51 )_ 559 State. Bushaw v. (2 Yer., ) 33 State, Carmichael v. (12 Ohio, n. s., 553) 145 State V. Doyle (68 Mo. App., 219) _ 559 State, Elwell v. (6 Yer.. 364) 33 State V. Hilton (3 Rich., 4.34) 541 State r. Linck (68 Mo. App., 161 )__ 559 State, McReynolds v. (5 Cold., 630) _ 33 State, McReynolds r. (45 Tenn., 18) _ 519 State V. Schweitzer (57 Conn., 532 )__ 292 State, Shafher v. (20 Ohio. 1) 220 State, Squire v. (40 Ind., 459) 231 State, Swartz r. (13 Ohio C. C. Rep., 02) 140 State v. Walker (36 Kans., 297) ___ 145 State r. Whaley (10 S. C, 500) ___ 541 State V. Wilson (117 Mo., 570) 454 State r. Worthingham (23 Minn., 528) 238 State r. Wright (134 Mo., 404)____ 457 Stetzell, Frances (9 P. D.. 9) 409 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce : Sec. 127 256 Sec. 253 17 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 93 Vage Stewart on Marriage and Divorce — Continued. Sec. 252 34.3 Stewart v. Vandervort (34 W. Va., 524) 310 Still, James H., minor of (12 P. D., 25) 28 Stine, Jasper M. (9 P. D., 488) 526 Stocljwell, Sarah O. (10 P. D., 428) 185, 196 Stone, William, alias William Sem- ple or Sample (15 P. D., 116> 528 Story, Conflict of Laws (p. 10) 66 Stringfellow v. Scott (Rich.. Eq. Ca., 109) 541 Strunk v. Strunk (14 P. D., 17)___ 138 Stuart, Fanny (14 P. D., 502) 439 Sullivan, John, widow of (10 P. D., 55) 73 Summerlin v. Livingstone (15 La. An., 519) 535 Sutherland on Statutory Construc- tion : Sees. 133, 322, 323 72 Sec. 309 73 Sec. 429 85 Sec. 246 167 Sec. 219 278 Sec. 223 278 Sec. 121 435 Sees. 137, 138 435 Swan V. Harrison (2 Cold., 535) 514 Swann, Margaret M. (8 P. D., 149)- 27,44 Swartz V. State (13 Ohio C. C. Rep., 62) 146 Swepston v. Swepston (15 P. D., 82) 383 Taber, People v. (92 N. Y., 146) ___ 414 Taylor, in re (9 Paige, 610) 293,419 Taylor v. Mayhew (11 Heis., 596) __ 516 Taylor <;. Taylor (10 Colo., Ct. of Ap., 303) 254 Taylor r. Taylor (15 P. D., 90) 557 Taylor, Annie (14 P. D., 71 )_ 199,282,295 Teeple et al., Wenning et al. r. (114 Ind., 189) 231 Tenneas, Jermann v. (39 La. An., 1021) 534 Teter v. Teter (101 Ind., 129) 231 Thomas, Margaret L. (9 P. D., 139) _ 242 Thomas, Peggy (13 P. D., 98) 530 Thompson v. Isk (99 Mo., 106) 456 Thompson, Jennette (14 P. D., 469) 140, 249 Thomson, Tolliver (8 P. I)., 390) __ 62,363 Thornley v. United States (113 U. S., 310) 66 Thornton, Meta (widow) (11 P. D., 21) 162, 313, 547 Thornton, Meta (widow) (15 P. D., 312) 351 Throop on Public Officers (sec. 797) _ 477 Tilton V. Tilton (13 P. D., 363) 135 Tobin, in re (15 N. Y. St. Rep., 749) Travers, Alice E. (1 P. D., 110) Treaty, Mexican War (Feb. 2, 1848). Tubbs, Martin (1 P. D., 187) Tuttle V. Raish (110 Iowa, 331) ___ Twining, Rex v. (2 B. and Aid., 386) Tyler v. Pomeroy et al. (8 Allen, Mass., 488) Tyson's Practice of Medicine (1900) Page. 349 306 313 560 174 231 233 357 U. Underbill, Greensborough v. (12 Vt., 604) 231 United States v. Black (128 U. S., 40) 477 United States v. Bowen (100 U. S., 508) 314,353 , United States v. Claflin (97 U. S., 456) 436 United States, Coffey v. (116 U. S., 443) 559 United States v. De Amador (16 N. Mex., 173) 393 United States v. Freight Association (166 U. S., 290, 318) 67 United States, Frisbe v. (157 U. S., 166) 185 United States v. Hays (20 Fed. R., 710) 245 United States v. Lancaster (2 Mc- Lean, 431) 347 United States, Mitchell v. (88 U. S., 352) 58 United States, The, Rodgers v. (185 U. S., 87) 436 United States, Thornley v. (113 U. S., 310) ^— 66 United States Trust Co. v. Maxwell (57 N. Y. Supp., 53) 416 Valentine, Barker v. (125 Mich., 336) 243 Vandervort, Stewart v. (34 W. Va., 524) 310, 449 Van Dusan v. Van Dusan (97 Mich., 70) Van Huff, Elizabeth (7 P. D., 474; Viers, John (14 P. D., 552) Vining, Rebecca C. (9 P. D., 362). 243 335 332 318 W. Wagner, Caroline (12 P. D., 134) __ 208 Walker, State v. (36 Kans., 297)— 145 Walker, Isaac (15 P. D., 198) 281 Walton V. Walton (32 Barb., 203) _ 473 War of Rebellion Records (Series in, V. 3, pp. 123, 661) 297 Ward well v. Wardwell (14 P. D., 234) 138 Warwick v. Cooper (5 Sneed, 660) _ 32 Watson, Commonwealth i\ (97 562) 85 94 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Watt, Anderson c. (138 U. S., 694) _ 461 Waymlre r. .letmore ('22 O. St., 271) 308 Wenning et al. r. Teeple (114 Ind., 189) 231 Whalen, Anna M. (9 1'. D., 346) ___ 368 Whaley, State r. (10 S. C, 500) ___ 541 Wballan, Jessie M. (8 P. D., 131) __ 306 Wharton on Evidence (v. 2, sec. 1323) 480 Whelan. Bridget (14 P. D., 380) 118 White, Locljhart r. (18 Tex., 102) __ 400 White r. White (82 Cal., 427) 245 White i: White (14 I'. I)., 313) 57 Wichita Land and Cattle Co., Nixon V. (87 Tex., 411) 401 Williams, Esther S. (7 1'. D., 327)— 27,53 Williams, John S. (10 P. D., 169) __ 73 Williamson, Wm. C. (8 P. D., 372) _ 27 Willie V. Wilson, alias Willie (14 P. D., 43) 239 Wilson, State v. (117 Mo., 570) ___ 454 Wilson, alias Willie, Willie v. (14 P. D., 43) 239 Wilson, William (10 P. D., 232) 396 ^yilson, William L. (4 P. D., 473) __ 569 Winship c. Connor (42 N. H., 341 )_ 261 Witz, Martha E. A. (15 P. D., 208) _ 418 Page. Woehl, J. E. (13 P. D., 355) 382 Wood, Cargile v. (63 Mo., 501) 86 Woodward, Mary A. (15 I'. D., 253) 493 Woolworth, Alexander, widow of (4 L. B. P., 65) 62 Worcester v. Georgia (6 I'et., 515) _ 283 Worthingham, State v. (23 Minn., 528) 238 Wright, State v. (134 Mo., 404) 457 Wright r. Wright (48 How. Pr., 1)_ 416 Wyman on Administrative Laws (sec. 35) 477 Y. Yates r. Houston (3 Tex., 433) 175, 231, 245, 400 Yerwood, Nathan (13 I'. D., 140) ___ 387 Yokel, Charles (8 P. D., 431) 334 Young, Jas. H. (1 P. D., 445) 251 Young, Joseph H. (776 L. B. P., 227) 410 Z. Zoellner v. Zoellner (46 Mich., 511)- Zwickey r. Haney (63 Wis., 464) ___ 556 473 LAWS CITED AND CONSTRUED. United States Statutes at Large. 1790, 1795, 1802, 1812, 1813, 1813, 1814, 1842, 3 847, 1850, 1850, 1850, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1861, I'age. April 30, enlistment 527 March 3, enlistment 527 March 16, enlistment 527 January 11, »mlistment 527 January 20, enlistment 527 January 29, enlistment 527 December 10. enlistment 527 August 11 (5 Stat. L., 504), service 26 February 11 : Bounty land — Construction 561 Service, widow's title 312 legal representa- tives 561 June 17, bounty, distant sta- tion 119 September 26, bounty land, service 62 September 28, bounty land, service 563 March 3 : Bounty land — Construction 561 Service 27, 62, 147 Widow's title— 312, 351, 561 May 14 (sec. 5), widows, act of March 3, 1855 568 March 3, widows, act of March 3, 1855 567 July 22, bounty 118 1862, 1855, 1862, 1862, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1866, 1866, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1877, 1881, I'age. February 13, age, oath of en- listment 8,525 March 3, bounty land, service- 27, 62, 147 July 14, service, joint resolu- tion July 16, 1862 368 July 16, joint resolution, serv- ice 368 July 17 : Act June 27, 1890, service, colored troops 198,281 Bounty 110 December 23, bounty 119 January 13, bounty 11J> March 3, bounty 119 June 20, bounty 120 July 4, bounty 121 treaty, United States with Choctaws and Chicka- saws, marriage and di- vorce 284 July 28, bounty 121 February 14, widows, act of March 3, 1855 566 April 22, bounty 121 December 1 (see 2425 to 2430, K. S.), widow's title 353 March 3 (see 1890, June 27), disloyalty 338 February 26, payment of pen- sion ___ 431 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 95 Page. 1882, July 25 (4698J, R. S.). inspec- tion of papers 169 1882, August 7, amending sec. 4702, R. S. : Adulterous cohabitation — Dependent mother ;i.'ir» Forfeiture, minors' title 28 Reformation 00 Restoration, estoppel. minors 47,48 Restoration, termina- tion, minors 48 Termination of widow's pension '.Mil Marriage — Age of consent 225 Arkansas laws _ 228, 488, 540 California laws UKi Choctaw Nation, citi- zenship, impediment 283 Civil code. Code Na- poleon 226,530 Cohabitation and re- pute 86, 464, 493 Colorado laws 253, 493 Connecticut laws 290 Decree of nullity — Evidence 503 Fraud, reimburse- ment 286 Jurisdiction 286, 470, 503 Limitation, vested rights 227 Ohio, jurisdiction- 286 Residence 470 Reservation 470, 503 Divorce — Collusion 553 Colorado laws 555 Decree, a mensa et thoro 128 Indiana laws ___ 229,278 New York laws 278 rendition of _ 278 res judicata 278, 553 Estoppel 552 Evidence 229,240 Fraud 211, 553 Judgment 278 Jurisdiction 470, 553 Presumption __ 174, 186, 229 Record, finding. __ 27S Remarriage 86,493 Res judicata 553 Domicile 308, 348 Estoppel 143 Evidence 30, 41, 86, 103, 174, 186, 208, 211, 223, 230, 236, 240, 290, 392. 399, 413, 464, 493, 495, 540 Good faith 208, 211 rage. 1882, August 7, amending sec. 4702, R. S. — Continued. Marriage — Continued. Illicit cohabitation, pre- sumption of continu- ance 240 Illinois laws— 186, 236, 290 Impediment 208, 211, 253, 283, 290, 413, ' 462, 488, 530, 540, 543 Indiana laws 229, 278 Iowa laws 174 Kansas laws : 211 Legitimacy 211, 386, 488 Louisiana laws 530 Maryland laws 464 Massachusetts laws__ 90, 462 Michigan laws 240,553 Minnesota laws : 230 Minors, legitimacy 488 Mississippi laws 11 Missouri laws 80,240 Nebraska laws 211 New Hampshire laws_ 90, 258 New Jersey laws . 41 New Mexico laws 392 New York laws 130, ?08, 227, 290 New Y'ork, divorce, re- marriage 413 Ohio laws__ 143, 225, 280, 308 Pennsylvania laws 495 Place of contract 308 Presumption of ca- pacity 223 Presumption,evidence 230, 413 Presumption of death. 41, 103, 253, 258, 495 Presumption of divorce 174, 186, 230, 540 Presumption of legal- ity 399,413 Putative marriage 530 Retroactive laws 462 Rhode Island laws 543 Second marriage 540 Separation, decree a mensa et thoro_^ 128 South Carolina laws, colored persons 411, 540 Tennessee laws, slaves 30, 503 Vested rights, decree of nullity 227 Voidable marriage 447 Texas laws 399 West Virginia laws 308 Voidable marriage- 447 Wisconsin laws 470 1882, August 7 : " Desertion, removal of 70 1882, August 7 : Payment, insane p e n - sioner 272, 430 1882, August 8 : Payment — Dependency 270 96 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1882, August 8 — Continued. Page. Payment — Continued. Insane pensioner, Gov- ernment Hospital for the Insane 430 1884, July 5 : Desertion, removal 70 Discharge, faithful service. 439 1886, May 17, desertion, removal 70 1887, January 29, Mexican war : Service 158,543 Widow, remarriage 103 dependence 324 1888, July 20, bounty 121 1888, August 14 : Honorable discharge 437 Removal of charge of de- sertion, fee 1 319 1888, August 27, deafness, rate, in- crease 207 1890, June 27 : Attorneys — Pee, contract 184 material service 492 nec€issary service _ 318 removal of charge of desertion 318 see. 4707 100,106 Neglect 359 Power of attorney 317 Practice, sec. 4707 172 Recognition 317, 359 Res judicata, sec. 4707- 172 Commencement — Minors 79 Widows 328 Dependent relatives, adul- terous cohabitation 335 Attorneys — Limitation, sec. 4707 ; res judi- cata 172 D ecla ration, amendment 18, 100, 106 Election 18, 100, 106, 194 Limitation, sec. 4707 194 Desertion, discharge {see 1902, July 1, joint reso- lution). Length of service 8, 525 Military age 548 D i s a b i 1 i ty. Confederate service ^ 76 Honorable discharge {see joint resolution of July 1, 1902). Evidence, death, presump- tion 41 Joint resolution July 1, 1902— Declaration, date of filing 8 Desertion, discharge __ 63, 94, 277, 437 1890, June 27 — Continued. Page. Joint resolution July 1, 1902 — Continued. Disability contracted in Confederate s e r v - ice 369 Disloyalty, subsequent Confederate service- 337 Marriage {sec 1882, August 7, marriage). Minors — Aid and attendance 407 Commencement 79 Title 28 Payment, guardians, juris- diction State court 364 Practice — Appeal, rerating, dis- missal — -265, 299, 332, 333 Declarations 486 Presumption of death 41 Remarriage, decree of nul- lity dropping, restora- tion 329 Restoration 475 Service- — Acts of July 27, 1892, June 27, 1902 25 Appointed man 215 Drafted man, com- mencement 232, 548 Length of service 340, 548 Colored troops 198, 281, 294 Masters and mates 366 Officer, enlisted man-_ 277 Western gunboat flo- tilla 366 Termination of war of re- bellion (service of col- ored troops) 198,281,294 Vicious habits, jurisdiction of Commissioner, opinions of other departments 427 Widows and minors — Commencement, minors- 79 widows 328 Dependence — Means of sup- port 257,329 Contract for sup- port 257 Cessation of sup- port 329 Dropping, cessation of dependence 329 Restoration, date of re- newal - 329 period o f n onde- pendence 329 Title 28 1892, July 27 {see 1902, June 27, Indian wars), 1893, January 5 : Mexican war — Fee, rerating, fund 273 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 97 1893, January 5 — Continued. Page. Mexican war — Continued. Service, dropping, res- toration 158 1893, December 21, notice, drop- ping 475,478 1894, July 18, inspection of papers- 169 1895, March! 2, rate, combined, prac- tice 550 1896, Marcli 13, presumption of death, application of law_ 347 1899, March 2, Mexican war, dis- cliarge, lionorable 69 1899, March 3 : Desertion — Cruelty, Insanity 450 National S o 1 d i e r s' Home, construction. 221 Res judicata 557 Retroactive laws 342 Divorce, estoppel 38 Domicile 14 Evidence 14 Marriage (sec 1882, August 7, marriage) 246 Marriage and divorce — Divorce, decree, res judicata 90, 38 Jurisdiction, estop- pel 90, 38 Remarriage, minor, vested right 82 Estoppel 143, 246 Minor, remarriage, vested right 82 character of aban- doned wife 382 Moral character — Evidence 21, 123, 136 Remarriage 136 •Necessitous circum- stances 246, 496 Payment, Soldiers' Home. 132, 143 Practice, notice 132 appeals- 96, 111, 218, 298 Remarriage, minor, vested right 82 Remarriage, moral char- acter 136 Soldiers' Home, desertion 132, 143 Special examination 14 Vested right, minors 82 1900, April 4, examination of papers 167 1900, May 9 : Act January 29, 1887, de- pendence 324 Commencement, widow 328 Dependence, practice 127, 203 Desertion, discharge 63 Discharge, dishonorable discharge .- 378 Evidence 203 Increase 300 Marriage (see 1882, Aug. 7, Marriage). 13070—06 7 1900, May 9 — Continued. Page. Practice, dependence 127, 203 Service, dishonorable dis- charge 378 Terms of rejection 203 1900, May 24, removal of charge of desertion. Fee 319 1901, March 3 : Restoration — Construction 381 Marriage — Decree of nul- lity 286,503 Divorce, decree a mensa et thoro_ 128 Presumption of death, lex domi- cilii 347 New grant 331 Remarriage, divorce 446 Sepai-ation, divorce 128 1902, March 10, examination of papers 167 1902, June 27 : Indian wars — Service — ' Cay use Indians, Oregon 396 Cherokee disturb- ances 23, 44, 130 Declarations 23 Discharge, honor- able, act of June 27, 1890_ 201 Evidence 44, 396 Florida 394 Length of service 44 Modoc 124 Record 50, 51 Sabine disturb- ances 44 State organiza- tions 23, 130 Texas and New Mexico 375 1902, July 1 : Joint resolution — Appointed man 215 Bounty or gratuity. 116, 525 Declarations, date of filing 8 Desertion, discharge _ 63, 94, 525 Disability in Confeder- ate service 337 Disloyalty, subsequent Confederate service- 337 Enlisted man, officer- 94, 276 Faithful service 437 Honorable discharge 215, 437 Military age 8,525 Revised Statutes, claims under _^ — .. 63 98 PENSION "AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Page. 1002, July 1— Continued. Joint resolution — Cont'd. Service, enlisted or appointed man, ''similar con- tracts " 1903, January 15, deafness, rate, in- crease 276 207 •age. 1003, March 2 : Amputation ; artificial limb 402 Construction of law 402 1905, February 20, payment of pen- sion 437 Sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 1116. 1117. 1118. 2418. 2419. 2424. 2425. 2426. 2427. 2428. 2429. 2430. 4693. 4698i 4701. 4702. 4704. 4704. Page. Enlistment, minors 526 Enlistment, minors 526 Enlistment, minors 526 Bounty land '- 310 Widows, act of March 3, 1855- 568 Bounty land 312 Bounty land, service 62 Construction 561 Bounty land, service 62 Bounty land, service 62 Bounty land, service 62 Construction 561 Bounty land, service 62 Bounty land : Construction 561 Service 62 Widow's title 312,351 Service 27,368 Inspection of papers 169 Indian wars, length of service 46 Legitimacy, application of law 387 Practice, declarations 486 Widows, act of March 3, 1855_ 566 Legitimacy, application of law 387 Marriage, Arkansas 488 4705. 4707. 4708. 4716. 4738. 4766. 4832. 5597. Page. Minox's of colored soldiers, legitimacy 386 Act of January 29, 1887, dependence 324 Dependent relatives — Attorneys — fee, act of June, 27, 1890 100, 106 practice, limitation, election 172 res judicata 172 Cessation of dependency- 331 Declaration, amendment, election 18, 100, 106 Election, limitation 194 Remarriage, minor's title 28 termination of widow's p e n - sion 331 See 1902, July 1, joint resolu- tion, disloyalty. Widows, act of March 3, 1855 566 See 1899, March 3 342 Payment — amended by act of August 7, 1882 271,431 Payment of pension 431 Bounty land, act of February 11, 1847 313 State Statutes. I'age. California, Civil Code, sec. 61, mar- riage 103 Colorado, Gen. Stats. (1883), sees. 484, 485, 1095, divorce, jurisdic- tion 555 Choctaw Nation : Chap. 7, sec. 1 of laws — mar- riage 283 Chap. 9, sees. 1, 2, 3 of laws — marriage 285 Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 24, divorce 285 Connecticut : Laws of 1640, 1649, 1702, 1783, 1847, 1855, marriage 292 Gen. Stats. Rev, 1902, marriage 292 Gen. Stats., Title 14, ch. 1, sec. 5, Rev. 1875, marriage 292 Gen. Stats., Title 13, ch. 1, sec. • 10, Rev, 1866, marriage ^ 292 I'age. Indiana, Stats., sec. 1946, divorce. guardianship of minors 392 Kentucky, act of February 14, 1866, marriage of slaves, legitimacy 387 Louisiana : Civil Code, art. 94, marriage and divorce (13 P. D., 102) 538 Article 133 539 Massachusetts : Act May 29, 1895, Rev. Laws, 1902, ch. 151, sec. 6, marriage 93 Laws, 1896, ch. 499, marriage. _ 463 Pub. Stat., ch. 147, sec. 33, sep- arate maintenance, divorce — 93 Minnesota : 5762 Stats., marriage 238 Gen. Stats, of 1878, marriage— 239 Mississippi, act of November 25, 1865. sec. 3, slave marriage------ r — r II PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 99 I'age. Missouri : Rev. Stats. (1809) — Sees. 1861, 4327, aban- doned wife 557 Sec. 2921, cause for divorce 458 New Hampshire, Pub. Stats., cli. 188, sec. 17 ; ch. 273, sec. 6 ; pre- sumption of deatli 259 New .Jersey, Nixon's Digest of Laws, p. 234, marriage, presumption of death 42 New Yorlc : Civii Code, Pro., sec. 1762, di- vorce, decree a mensa et thoro 129 Rev. Stats., sec. 6, ch. 8, art. 1, p. 2332, marriage 138 Rev. Stats., Title 1, art. 1, ch. 8, pt. 2, divorce 414 Ohio : Acts of .January 6, 1824, May 5, 1869, February 10." 1870, marriage, age of consent 225 I'age. Ohio — Continued. Bates' Annotated Statutes, sees. 6384, 6392, 6393, marriage, age of consent 226 Rhode Island, general laws 1896, chap. 191, sec. 5 543 South Carolina : Civil Code of 1893, sec. 2160___ 541 Statutes of 1902, sec. 2661 541 Tennessee : Act of May 26, 1866, marriage of slaves 30,503,518 Shannon's Code, sees. 4201, 4218, marriage and divorce 509, 516 West Virginia : Code, ch. 64, sec. 1, marriage- 308, 447 Code, ch. 64, sec. 4, marriage 310 Code (1860), ch. 109, sec. 1, marriage 447 Wisconsin, Stats., 2330, 2348, 2349, 2886, marriage, nullity 474 TABLE OF CASES OVERRULED OR MODIFIED. [From Vol. 1 to Vol. 15, inclusive.] Cases reported. Where overruled or modified. A. Aab, George (9 P. D., 377) Adams, Peter (2 P. D., 46) Ammerman, William M. (1 P. D., 5) Anderson, Margaret J. (4 P. D., 67); see also 6 P. D.,200; 7 P. D.,468; 9 P. D., 497: 12P. D., 134 Armstrong, Jasper N. (14 P. D., 285), modified Auringer, Constantia V. (8 P. D., o. s., 247) B. Backof, widow of Frank (2P. D., o. s., 259) Baltzer, George (10 P. D., 37), modified (text 21) Barclay, Pension Agent (5 P. D., 175), contra Barleyoung, John (7P. D., 453); see 14 P. D., 71 Boswell, minor of Sanford (6 P. D., 2*5); see 7 P. D., 54.5; 14 P. D., 288 Brookman, George H. (7 P. D., 260) Bryant, Charles J. (7 P. D., 299), modified Brown, Harriette, widow Charles F. (3 P. D., 92); see also 11 P. D., 301. Brunz, Anton (8P. D., 344) Burton, Jennette (9 P.D.,31); see afeo 14 P. D., 428 Burton, Morris (7 P. D., 188) Burton, Reuben (IIP. D., 294), modified in part. C. Campbell, Mark G. (8 P. D., 208), overruled in part Chase, Sarah N. (7 P. D.,543), overruled in part Coburn, Mary (2 P. D., 80) Coburn, William T. (7 P. D.,182) Coffey, George W. (4 P. D., 285). Cole, Russel S. (4P.D.,141) Colgin, Susan (5 P. D., 137) ,. 11 P. D., 49. 5 P. D., 351. 3P.D.,1. 12 P. D.. 278. 14 P. D., 420. 6P.D.,10. 4P.D.,77. 12 P. D., 17. 6 P. D., 205, 297; 7 P. D., 78. 9 P. D., 147. 8P. D., 162; 9 P. D. 93. 13 P. D., 184. 9 P. D., 108. 13 P. D., 90. 8 P. D., 316. 15 P. D., 503. 14 P. D., 106. 10 P. D., 249. 4P.D.,62. 8 P. D., 316. 7 P. D, 229. 7 P. D., 270. 8 P. D., 316. lUO PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases overruled or modified — Continued. Cases reported. Where overruled or modified. Collins, Frances H. (6P. D., 257) 7P.D.,2a9, Collins, Richard C, alias Edward Crossweight (125 L. B., 82).. Communication (6 P. D.,283) .- Comstock, Harriet (10 P. D. , 220), overruled in part Coney, John G. (2 P. D., o. s., a5) Conroy, mother of James B. (3 P. D., o. s., 477) Cox, Mary A. (3 P. D., 313; see 11 P. D., 62, 901) Crain, minors of Joseph (4 P. D.,358) Crider, Malinda L. (7 P. D., 462), overruled (act Mar, 13, 1896) Darling, Elizabeth (10 P. D., 244 and 399), overruled in part . . . Davinney, Henry (5 P. D., 288); see also 9 P. D., 382 Davis, Margaret A. (14 P. D., 408). overruled in part -. Dick, Robert M. (3 P. D., 333), modified Dickenson, Manco C, widow of (6L. B. P., 318) Dorlas, Nancy J. (5 P. D., 230) _... Downing, widow of James M. (4 P. D., 222), modified Dyer, David H. (9 P. D., 87), modified E. Eckerson, Theodore J. (IL. B. ''Qa,"98) Eding, Charles H. (5 P. D., 234).... Evans, Cynthia A. (5 P. D., 188), oveiTuled in part F. Palkenburg, De Witt C. (3P. D., 336) Fane, Amanda (10 P. D., 254) Fitzpatrick, minors of Patrick (5 P. D., 248) Friel, James E. (1 P. D., 329) contra; see also s. c, 6 P. D., 209 G. Gabriel, Francoise (12 P. D., 382) Gannon, Elizabeth A. (3P. D., 67) Garman, Mary A. (3P. D., 179) Garrison, Daniel B. (6 P. D., 289), overruled in part Gateson, minor Joseph (5 P. D., 417) Geddings, Esther (36 Fee P. L. B., 374) Gerard, Wesley C. (L. B. "Ma," 103) Germain, Louisa C. (lOP. D.,393) Gilbert, Margaret (8 P. D., 249), overruled in part and modified in part. Gillian, child of David, claim No. 231,593, May 11, 1894 Gilliland, Eliza (6 P. D., 257), overruled in part. Gillman, Margaret (9 P. D., o. s., 310) Glenn, Wellington (5 P. D., 284), overruled in principle Graves, minor Jas. R. (211 L. B. P., 259) Green, Elizabeth, alias Monroe, alias Ward (3 P. D., o. s., 122) Gresham, Mary E. (6P. D., 84) Groppe, Henry (8 P. D., 293), overruled in part H. Hamilton, Zenas (2P. D.,217). Harding, James (2 P. D., 232), overruled in principle Harmon, James A. (129 L. B., 7) Harvey, Rachel (7 P. D., 60; sf e 11 P. D., 97) Hatfield, C.W. (5P. D., :J49) Haynes, Sanford A. (4 P. D., 405) Hooker, America (8P. D., 210; see 13 P. D., 90) ...,.„...., ,.. 11 P. D., 380. 7P.D.,8. 14 P. D., 554. 3 P. D., 200. IP.D.,383. 7P.D.,545. 12 P. D., 278. 11P.D.,17L 7 P. D., 233. 15 P. D., 44. 6 P. D, 226. 3P. D.,o.s., 7P D.,468. 7P.D.,3a5. 12 P.D.,466, 2 P. D., 187, 309. 8 P. D., 316. 7 P. D., 207. 7 P. D., 218. 15 P. D., 503. 8 P. D., 111. 3 P. D., 1,16, 203. 409. 14 P. D. 9P.D., 7P.D., 7P.D., 7P.D., 14 P. D. 4P.D., 11 P. D. 15 P. D. 8P.D., 7P.D., 10 P. D 7P. D., 13 P. D 3P. D., 8P. D., 9P. D., ,344. 382. 247. 229. 163. ,186. 51. ,66,131. ,503. 142. 229. .. o- s., J 200. .,148. o. s., 2i ,316. , 1,52. 3P. D.,3. 4P.D., 31,315, 11 P. D., 380. 8 P. n., 316. 7 P. D., 330. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 101 Table of cases overruled or modified — Continued. Cases reiKjrted. Hope, William S. (182 L. B., 400). Howard, Lafayette Q. (8 P. D., 230), overruled in part; see also 11 P. D., 448; 13P.D., 148,151 Hughes, Juda (7P.D., 107); se*' 15 P. D.,503 Hurst, Mary Ann (9 P. D., 406) I. Ingerick, Jane (1 P. D., 394); see l6 P. D., 335. Instructions (10 P. D., 465) Instructions (11 P. D., a51) J. Jewell, Franklin (5 P. D., 285), overruled in part Johnson, Ann B. (7 L. B. P., 69) Johnson, Gus (8 P. D., 46:3), modified. Johnson, Thomas C. (242 L. B., 175) Jones, Catherine (7 L. B.P.,284) Jones, widow of Rowland M. (3P. D., 433) Jones, William (1 P. D., 87).... K. Kaufman, Daniel B. (1 P. D., 383), overruled Kaufman, Daniel B. (3 P. D., 137); see 51*. D., 288; 7 P. D. Kephart, Schuyler C, minor Samuel A. (4 P. D., 419) Kerren, Matilda (7 P. D., 443).... Kersey, Sarah A. (6 P. D., 1), modified; see 7 P. D., 235... Kibler, Charles F. (77 L. B. P.,50) Klein, Moses (3 L. B. P., 38) Knappenberger, Caroline (3 P. D., 263) Koschwitz, Augusta M. (11 P. D., 102; see 13 P. D., 90) .... 9P. D., L,. Latham, Emily (5 P. D., 170) Laws, Panter, heirs of (2 P. D., o. s.,291) Lessor, George (8 P. D., 114), overruled in part... Lesuer, widow of Charles (L. B., ''Zb,'" 327) Levan, Daniel Webster (9 P. D., 322) Lewis, Mercy (5 P. D., 293; see 15 P. D., 413) Lingers, Sophia, widow of James (4 P. D., 287), modified Lott, Catherine (5 P. D., 382) Lynch, Charles (1 P. D., o. s. M. McCoy, John R. (5 P. D., 369) McNeil, Mary E. (3 P. D., 26) Mace, Richard (5 P. D., 16) Martin, minors of Richard (6 P. D., 107) Martini, minors of William (7 P. D., 59) Milbourn, Chalkley, alias T. C. (L. B., "V,"379) Milliken, widow of Daniel, now Morrison (2 P. D., 100, 272). Monroe, Elizabeth (3 P. D., o. s., 282); see 3 P. D., o. s., 122 .. Monthony, Stephen F. (11 P. D., 193); .see 15 P. D., 8 MuUins, Charles B. (6 P. D., 285), overruled in part Nichols, Betty P. (13 P. D., 330) Niedhammer, Alma (8 P. D., 276); .see 11 P.D., 301 Norris, Louisa S. (5P. D., 42) Where overruled or modified. 11 P. D., 380. 12 P. D., 25. 10 P. D., 303. 14 P. D., 24. 12 P. D., 147. 7 P. D., 183. 1 P. D., o. s., 429, 14 P. D., 474. 12 P. D., 59. 7 P. D., o. 8., 213. 7 P. D., 24. 3P. D.,16. 3 P. D., 137. 7 P. D., 163. 15 P. D., .561. 7 P. D., 270. 8 P. D., 470. 7 P. D., 207. 7 P. D., 545. 12P. D., 184:. 9 P. D., :382. 4 P. D., 202. 11 P. D., 380. 7 P. D., 207; 7 P. 437; 8 P. D., 42. 7 P. D., 163. IP. D., 1. 7 P. D., 270. 7 P. D., 376. 7 P. D., 408. 7 P. D., 229. 7 P. D., 478. 2 P. D , :«o. 3P. D., 283. 14 P. D., 445. 7P. D, 126. 15 P. D., 198. 7 P. D., 74. 102 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Table of cases overruled or modified— Contiuxied. Cases reported. "Where overruled or modified. Norton, John (9 P. D., 38! Numer, William (5 P. D. ), modified IIP.D., 362. 168) - ' 6P.D., 2m. O. Oliver, David (7 P. D., 597); seeaZso 9P. D., 96, 395 | 9P. D., 182. Order 231, annulled , 11 P. D.. :i87. O'Neill, Margaret (8 P. D., 333) ' 15P.D.,339. Osborn, William B. (3 P. D., 396) Packard, child of Hiram F. (171 P. D., 470) Palmer, Ellen A. (7 P. D., 363); see 14 P. D., 554 Parcell, Catherine (13P.D., 450), overruled in part Parker, see Packard, child of Hiram F Pearl, James A. (3 P. D., 375) Pendleton, John (5P. D., 217) Pereles, Louis (77 L. B. P., 55) Perkins, minors of Harvey (13P.D., 414) Plount, minor of Edward (13 P. D.,541) Poland, Elizabeth H. (8 P. D., 266) , overruled In part Pomeroy, Fanny G. (13 P. D., 342); set- 15 P. D., 303 Pool, Lucinda M. R. (1 P. D., 401); see 15 P. D., 335 Porter, father of Andrew (4P. D., 415).. Pulver, Jonas W., alleged minor of (10 P. D., 227), overruled in part. reinstated Pyle, widow of Jesse F. (14 P. D., o. s., 151), modified R. Ransom, Albert K. (5 P. D., 183), modified Rhinehart, Perry (2 L. B. P., 122) Rogers, Washington H. (6 P. D., 170)... Rushmore, Mary J. (2 P. D., o. s., 152) S. Sanders, Emma C. (11 P. D., 114) Schaflfer, Louis (6 P. D., 137) overruled in part reaffirmed Schmidlin, Elizabeth (6 P. D., 200); see 10 P. D., 211 Schreve, Theresia (9 P. D., 78) Server, Ann Eliza (7P. D., 468); see 10 P. D., 211 Sheets, Amy P. (3 P. D., 293).. Sherard, Nancy E. (704 L. B. P., 112), overruled in part Sherwood, Sarah, widow of William H. Wales (9 P. D., o. s., : Shuttleworth, Minnie (3 P. D., 50); see 11 P. D., 301 Soper, Briggs (8 P. D., 394), overruled in part Sousa, Elizabeth (436 L. B., 249) Spencer, John (6 P. D.,167), modified Statesman, Samuel (2 P. D., o. s., 345) Still, James H. (12 P. D., 25), modified and explained Striggon, Elizabeth (8P. D., 12) Swann, Margaret M. (8 P. D., 149), overruled in part T. Taft, Alfred C. (5 P. D., 110) Thomas, Margaret L. (9 P. D., 139), modified.. Thomas, Peggy (13 P. D., 98), overruled in part _ Thornton, Meta G., widow (15 P. D., 312, Sol), same case P. D., 398. 8 P. D., 142. 14P. D., 63. 7 P. D. 376. 7P.D., 545. 7 P. D., 270. 14 P .D ,428. 14 P .D ,428. 9 P. D., 162. 7 P. D., 507. 13 P .D ,148,151,541 14P .D ,428. IP. D. 27. 7 P. D. 235. 2L. B. P., 125. 7 P. D. 235. 2 P. D. o.s.,297. 14 P .D .,456. 7 P. D. 597. 9 P. D. 182. 14 P. D., 497. 7P. D., 15 P. D 10 P. D. 9P.D., 12 P. D, 7P.D., 10 P. D. 15 P. D. 12 P. D. 15 P. D. 7P.D., 10 P. D. 15 P. D. 15 P. D. 468. ,478. ,o.s., 152. ,166. 152. ,78. ,28. ,441. ,44. 218. ,162. ,530. ,561. PENSION AND BOtlNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 103 Table of cases overruled or modified — Continued. Cases reported. Trask, Napoleon B. (9P. D., 113); .sre 11 P. D., 62 Treatl-:e on Practice of Pension Bureau, modified Treatise on Practice of Pension Bureau (p. 85, par. 7), overruled Tucker, Edwin E. (IP. D., 1) V. Van Fossen, John (3 P. D., 347) Varco, IsabeUa (9 P. D., 1) •. W. Wagoner, Carroll M. (1 P. D., 338) Walden, Henry, father (8 P. D., 340); see 14 P. D., 474 , Wales, Sarah, now Sherwood (9 P. D., o. s., 336) Ward, Berkely (L. B., "Za," 194) Welch, Ellen (5 P. D.,394), overruled in part Wempe, Frank (5 P. D., 339) Wescott, W. F. (6P. D., 226) West, Sarah E. (3 P. D., 115), overruled in part Williams, Catherine A Willis, William Wolhart, Jacob (8 P. D., 226) Y. Yates, Lizzie, widow (10 P. D., 446); see 13 P. D., 90 Z. Zerback, Joseph (L. B., "Qa,"4l3) Where overruled or modified. 11P.D..451. 12 P. D., 166. 3P.D.,94. 7 P. D., 218. 9 P. D., 320. 8P.D.,1. 10 P. D. 2P.D., 7P.D., 7P.D., 7P.D., 7P.D., 11 P. D. 12 P. D. 9P.D., 43. 218. 132. 207. ,o.s.,274. ,o.s.,296. 152. 4 P. D., 215. DIGEST OF PENSION DECISIONS. ABANDONMENT. By Attorneys. See Attorneys: No. 2 (15 P. D., 109) ; Nos. 9, 10 (9 P. D., 213, 375; 11 P. D., 25; 13 P. D., 444; 14 P. D., 273). By Parents and Children. See Dependent Parents: No. 4 (12 P. D., 131; 14 P. D., 271). Under Act of March 3, 1899. See Division of Pension, the whole chapter. When Minors Are Entitled under Section 4706, Revised Statutes. 1. The words " on presentation of satisfactory evidence thereof to the Commissioner of Pensions," as used in section 4706, Re- vised Statutes, import that the Commissioner's function, in cases arising thereunder, is not merely executive, but judicial as well; and 2. When satisfactory evidence has been presented to the Com- missioner that a widow has abandoned the care of the minor children of a deceased soldier, " or is an unsuitable person, by reason of immoral conduct, to have the custody of the same," such children may be pensioned in the same manner as if no widow had survived such soldier, regardless of a certificate of a probate court as to such facts. (Case of minors of Alfred S. Hamilton, 7 P. D., 437; Charles and Caroline McElhaney (minors),8P. D., 42.) ANNOTATION. The above decisions, although appearing in the " Digest of 1897," are reinserted herein, because no case arising under sec- tion 4706, Revised Statutes, appears in the published decisions of the Secretary since 1895. In case of the filing of a claim by the guardian of a soldier's minor child or children whose mother receives a pension as soldier's widow, alleging that said mother has abandoned said child or children, or is an unsuitable person, 105 106 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LANt) CLAIMS. by reason of immoral conduct, to longer have the care and cus- tody of said child or children, the claim will be adjudicated under said section 4706, R. S., as indicated in above-mentioned decisions. ABSENCE FROM COMMAND. See Line of Duty : No. 7 (11 P. D.. 30; 12 P. D., 431 ; 14 P. D., 114). See Service: No. 22 (11 P. D., 435; 14 P. D., 2'u). ABSENC]^. See Line of Duty : No. 7 (11 P. D.. .30 ; 12 P. D., 431 ; 14 P. D., 114). See Service: No. 22 (11 P. D., 435: 14 P. D., 257). ACCIDENTAL INJURY. See Death Cause: No. 1 (9 P. D., 492). See Line of Duty: No. 7, 8, 9, 17 (12 P. D., 431; 9 P. D., .52, 4.33; 11 P. D., 191 ; 14 P. D., 203, 506 ; 11 P. D., 103 ; 9 P. D., 130 ; 14 P. D., 81. ACCRUED PENSIONS. References. See Attorneys: No. 12 (11 P. D., 49). See Disloyalty : No. 10 (14 P. D., 104, 422). See Evidence: No. 10 (11 P. D., 501). See Insane Person : No. 2 (15 P. D., 270). . See Jurisdiction : No. 2 (12 P. D., 147). See Pending Claim : No. 1 (9 P. D., 171). See Reimbursement: No. 4 (14 P. D., 152; 11 P. D., 395). Index. 1. Generally. 2. Minors over 16 years old. 3. Minor grandchildren. 4. Fund in hands of guardian. 5. When original pension illegal. 6. Act of March 2, 1895. 7. Act of March 13, 1896. 8. Special act. 9. Under section 4719, Revised Statutes. 10. When disloyalty bars title to. 11. When disloyalty does not bar title to. 1. Generally. Accrued pension — Act March 2, 1895. (Alleged minors of William B. Weyant, 9 P. D., 276.) Under the act of March 2, 1895, no payment of accrued pension (except in reimbursement cases) can be made to any person other than the widow or a child of the soldier. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 107 2. Minors over Sixteen Years Old. Accrued pension — Act of 31 arch 2^ 1895 — Section J// 02^ Recised Statutes. (Minors of Andrew W. Haskett, 9 P. D., 8.) The minors, being over 16 years of age at the death of the widow of soldier who was in receipt of pension, are not entitled to the accrued pension due the widow at date of her death, nor are they entitled to pension under the provisions of section 4702, Revised Statutes, as she had received a part of pension named in said section. 3. Minor Grandchildren. A Gcrued pension — A ct March ^, 1895 — Minor grandchildren. ( Minor of Orange Trice, 9 P. D., 393.) The grandchildren of a soldier have no title to accrued pension. Euling No. 218 of the Commissioner of Pensions is abrogated by the act of March 2, 1895. 4. Fund in Hands of Guardian. Jurisdiction — G uardianship — Pension fund— A cc7nied pension. (Commissioner of Pensions, 11 P. D., 351.) 1. The guardian of a pensioner is. the agent of the United States for the proper expenditure of pension money in his hands, irrespective of the duties devolved upon him by the State law. 2. A pension fund granted to a pensioner, in the hands of a guardian, is in transitu until it reaches its final destination, and is controlled only by the United States; and the Commissioner of Pensions is invested with the discretionary power necessary to the proper administration of the pension laws, and guardians holding pension funds are subject to his direction both before and after the death of their wards. 3. All funds which have accumulated in the hands of a guar- dian by operation of the pension law and have not been paid to the pensioner or expended in accordance with law in his behalf are in the nature of accrued pension. *• 4. An unexpended pension fund in the hands of a guardian has not, in legal contemplation, been paid to the pensioner, and is an accrued pension. 5. The act of March 2, 1895, is the law of distribution of ac- crued pension of a deceased pensioner, and applies to the fund in the hands of a guardian unexpended at the time of such pen- sioner's decease. 5. When Original Pension Illegal. Disloyalty — Section J^716^ Reinsed Statutes — Accrued pension. (Anna M. Winkler, widow, 11 P. D., 241.) 108 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Pension having erroneously been granted to the soldier under the act of June 27, 1890, he having aided and abetted the late rebellion against the authority of the United States, section 47l(), Revised Statutes, positively prohibits the payment of the pen- sion that may have accrued to him to the date of his death to his widow. 6. Act of March 2, 1895. Acctmed pension — Act of March ^, 1895. (William Lake, de- ceased, 12 P. D.,405.) The act of March 2, 1895, provides that from and after Sep- .tember 28, 1892, if no Avidow or child survive the pensioner, no payment >vhatsoever of accrued pension shall be made or allowed except so much as may be necessary to reimburse the person who bore the expense of his last sickness and burial, and expressly repeals the provision of the act of March 1, 1889, under which this claim for accrued pension is made. 7. Act of March 13, 1896. Accrued pensio7i — Presumption of death ^ act March 13^ 1896 — Pay- ment. (George H. Overocker, 12 P. D., 208.) The pending invalid claim filed in 1891 was allowed in 1894, which was subsequent to the soldier's disappearance and sup- posed death in 1893, and the pension was never paid. In 1900 the widow was allowed pension in her own right, under act of June 27, 1890, upon the presumption of soldier's death, after his continued and unexplained absence from his home and family for a period of seven years from date of his disappear- ance, during which period no intelligence of his existence had been received. The widow is also held to be entitled to such part of soldier's pension as accrued while he was known to be alive, or from the date of the commencement thereof as adjudicated to the date of his disappearance, although the exact date of his death is not known. 8. Special Act. Accrued pension — Evidence — Presumption of death — Special act. (B. Matilda Taylor, widow, 13 P. D., 181.) A special act directed the name of soldier to be placed upon the pension roll, " subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws." Exhaustive search has failed to discover the whereabouts of said soldier, he having disappeared somewhat over one year prior to the approval of said special act. Held: There is no accrued pension due under the said special act, and the claimant herein has no rights under it. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 109 9. Under Section 4719, Revised Statutes. Accrued pension — Restoration— Section Jf719^ Revised Statutes. (Eliza C. Brown, widow, 13 P. D., 188.) The widow of a soldier, whose name was stricken from the rolls under section 4719 of the Revised Statutes, has title to the arrears of pension thereunder, providing her evidence is suffi- cient to establish continuance of disability, and to give satis^ factory explanation .of the soldier's failure to claim his pension under his original certificate. 10. When Disloyalty Bars Title to. Disloyalty — Evidence — Section Jf716. (James H. Kelley, 14 P. D., 104.) The evidence fails to rebut the presumption, from the records of the War Department, of this soldier's voluntary aiding and abetting the rebellion. He having died prior to the passage of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, removing the bar of section 4716 as applied to the act of June 27, 1890, said joint resolution hus no effect upon his claim under said act, and does not remove said bar existing at the time of his death so as to entitle his widow to accrued pen- sion under said claim. 11. When Disloyalty Does Not Bar Title to. Disloyalty — Joint resolution of Jidy 7, 1902 — Section JfllG^ Revised Statutes — Accrued pension. (Rebecca Medlock, widow, 14 P. D., 422.) Where a soldier died prior to the passage of the joint resolu- tion of July 1, 1902, removing bar to payment under section 4716, Revised Statutes, as applied to the act of June 27, 1890, said resolution affords no remedy to those claiming under him in all cases where his right to pension had not been admitted, said suppositive personal right to pension dying with him. But where a soldier's claim had been admitted and his right to pension, so far as section 4716, Revised Statutes, is concerned, had never been questioned in his lifetime, his widow may not be refused payment of his accrued pension subsequent to the passage of said joint resolution, upon the ground that he had rendered voluntary service to the Confederacy, a fact discovered after soldier's death. ANNOTATION. A popular fallacy exists as to those entitled to an accrued pension. This fallacious belief arises from the fact that the heirs at law^ of a deceased person are not all entitled to the accrued pension of the decedent, as they are to his or her other 110 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. property. Only those heirs at law and other persons specific- ally named in the pension laws are entitled to the accrued pension. The act of March 2. 1895, which is the only law relative to the payment of accrued pension now in force, provides that from and after September 28, 1892, the accrued pension to the date of the death of any pensioner, or of any person entitled to a pension having an application therefor pending, and whether a certificate therefor shall issue prior or subsequent to the death of such person, shall, in the case of a person pensioned or apply- ing for pension on account of his disabilities or service, be paid, first, to his widow^ ; second, if there is no widows to his child or children under the age of 16 years at his death ; third, in case of a widow, to her minor children under the age of 16 years at her death. Such accrued pension shall not be considered a part of the assets of the estate of such deceased person, nor be liable for the payment of debts of said estate in any case whatsoever, but shall inure to the sole and exclusive benefit of the widow or children. And if no widow or child survive such pensioner, and in the case of his last surviving child who was such minor at his death, and in case of a dependent mother, father, sister, or brother, no payment whatsoever of their accrued pension shall be made or allowed except so much as may be necessary to reimburse the person who bore the expense of their last sickness and burial, if they did not leave suiRcient assets to meet such expense. The effect of this act was to nullify the departmental ruling of September 28, 1892, which restricted the application of sec- tion 4718, Revised Statutes, to invalid pensioners and applicants, the intent of the act being to leave all adjustments and payments of accrued pension made prior to September 28, 1892, undis- turbed, but to establish a new rule to govern all adjustments and payments of such pension after that date. It makes no difference when the claim was filed or when the applicant for pension died. The only question is. When was the claim ad- judicated? If prior to September 28, 1892, then the law govern- ing was section 4718, Revised Statutes ; if subsequent to Septem- ber 28, 1892, then the law governing was the act of March 2, 1895. (See case of Mariah E. Brown, 8 P. D., 439.) The provision in said act that in case of a widow the accrued pension shall be paid to her minor children under 16 years at her death is held to refer only to her children by the soldier. If the widow pensioner's children, by the soldier, are all over the age of 16 years at her death, they are not entitled to the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Ill widow's accrued pension, nor to any pension whatsoever. (See 9 P. D., 8.) ^Vhere a soldier who is a pensioner or has a claim for pension pending dies, leaving no widow or child under 16 years of age surviving, and where the last surviving minor child of a de- ceased soldier, which child is a pensioner or has a claim for pension pending, dies before reaching its sixteenth year, and in case of a dependent father, mother, sister, or brother, no pay- ment whatsoever of' their accrued pension shall be made or allowed, except so much as may be necessary to reimburse the person who bore the expense of their last sickness and burial, if they did not leave sufficient assets to meet such expense. The grandchildren of a soldier have no title to his accrued pension. When a Union soldier, who had a prior Confederate service, has died prior to the passage of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, his widow or minor children have no title to his accrued pension (14 P. D., 101), except where the soldier's claim had been admitted and his right to pension, so far as section 4716, Revised Statutes, is concerned, had never been questioned in his lifetime, and the fact of his Confederate service was not discov- ered until after his death. (See Rebecca Medlock, widow, 14 P. D., 422.) In May, 1898, the Auditor for the Interior Department decided that where an applicant for invalid pension dies while his claim is pending, leaving a widow, who also dies without receiving the accrued invalid pension (if the invalid claim is allowed), it is available (under the act of March 2, 1895) for the payment of the expenses of the last sickness and funeral of the soldier. But s«e case of Charles Staples (Alice Haynes completing), 12 P. D., 298 ; Digest, chapter '' Reimbursement," No. 3. PRACTICE. Our board of review holds as follows: . That in all cases where an invalid pension certificate is issued and the pensioner dies before or after the date of issuance and prior to actual payment^ the widow, or if there be no widow, the pensioner's children under 16 years of age are allowed the pen- sion upon an accrued face brief, unless something is to be cor- rected on the invalid issue, then use a reissue face brief and not an accrued face brief. If by change of residence or otherwise the certificate fails to reach pensioner and his name is dropped from the rolls by reason of failure to claim the pension for over three years, and after thQ 112 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. dropping the pensioner dies without being restored, the widow can not be paid said pension upon the accrued brief face, but must file an application for the soldier's name to be restored to the rolls and she be paid upon a reissue, ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1847. See Bounty Land: No. 3 (15 P. D., 312, 561). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1855. See Bounty Land: Nos. 2, 3 (15 P. D., 02, 147, 312, 351, 561). ACT OF JULY 18, 1874. See Aid and Attendance: No. 2 (12 P. D., 77, 299). ACT OF JUNE 17, 1878. See Aid and Attendance: No. 2 (12 P. D., 70). ACT OF JUNE 16, 1880. See Aid and Attendance: No. 2 (12 P. D., 77). ACT OF MARCH 25, 1862. See Service: No. 15 (10 P. D., 58). ACT OF JULY 4, 1864. See Declarations: No. 3 (J) P. D., 7). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1865: See Minors: No. 4 (12 P. D., 83). See Restoration : No. 2 (13 P. D., 286). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1879. See Aid and Attendance: No. 2 (12 P. D., 70). See Commencement: No. 6 (11 P. D., 18). See Limitation : Nos. 1, 6 (14 P. D., 24, 489). ACT OF JULY 25, 1882. See Jurisdiction : No. 1 (11 P. D., 348). See Special Act: No. 2 (13 P. D., 95). ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1882. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 1 (9 P. D., 324) ; No. 2 (9 P. D., 62, 116, 327) ; No. 3 (9 P. D., 17) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 286) ; No. 5 (13 P. D., 357; 14 P. D., 84, 219) ; No. 6 (14 P. D., 242) ; No. 7 (14 P. D., 362) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 48) ; No. 9 (15 P. D., 96) ; No. 10 (12 P. D., 258). ' See Estoppel: No. 4 (15 P. D., 47), PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 113 See Insane Person: No. 2 (15 P. D., 270) ; No. 3 (15 P. D., 430). See Legitimacy: Nos. 4, 7 (14 P. D., 474; 15 P. D., 386). See Marriage: subtitle West Virginia (14 P. D.. 38); No. 4 (13 P. D., 272) ; No. 11 (12 P. D., 517; 15 P. D., 459) ; No. 15 (13 P. D.. 129, 140, 173). See Minors: No. 2 (10 P. D., 124). ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1882. See Insane Persons: No. 3 (15 P. D., 430). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1883. See Rate and Rating: No. 11 (9 P. D., 125). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1885. See Increase: No. 1 (9 P. D., 54). ACT OF MARCH 19, 1886. See Increase: No. 6 (14 P. D., 95). See Marriages: No. 16 (10 P. D., 12). See Rate and Ratings : No. 1 (9 P. D., 403). See Reimbursement: No. 2 (13 P. D., 201). ACT OF AUGUST 4, 1886. See Amputation : No. 1 (9 P. D., 70; 11 P. D., 1; 14 P. D., 264). See Disability : No. 9 (12 P. D., 477). See Increase : Nos. 1 and 9 (9 P. D., 204, 401). See Rate and Rating: No. 9 (13 P. D., 362). See Rerating: No. 4 (14 P. D., 215). ACT OF JANUARY 29, 1887. See Dependent Widows: No. 5 (10 P. D., 28; 15 P. D., 324). See Desertion : No. 1 (9 P. D., 382). See Disability : No. 11 (9 P. D., 341). See Honorable Disc^harge : No. 1 (14 P. D., 195). See Increase: No. 7 (14 P. D., 155,285). See Remarriage: No. 1 (10 P. D., 324; 11 P. D.. 338). See Service: Nos. 4 and 7 (10 P. D., 139, 425; 11 P. D., 110, 163, 218; 14 P. D., 357; 15 P. D., 158; 15 P. D., 544). ACT OF MARCH 4, 1890. See Aid and Attendance: No. 2 (10 P. D., 172 ; 12 P. D., 77, 299). See Commencement: No. 13 (14 P. IX. 209). See Rate and Rating : No. 7 (10 P. D., 443). ACT OF JUNE 27, 1890. See Accrued Pensions: Nos. .5, 10, and 11 (11 P. D., 241; 14 P. D., 104, 422) ; No. 7 (12 P. D., 208). See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 2 (9 P. D., 62, 116, 327) ; No. 3 (9 P. D., 17) ; No. 5 (14 P. D., 84). 13070—06 8 114 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. See Age : Nos. 1, 3 (11 P. D., 179 ; 12 P. D., 511 ). See Appeals : No. 3 (10 P. D., 250) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 265). See Attorneys : No. 3 (15 P. D., 184) ; No. 8 (10 P. D., 460). See Commencement : No. 1 (9 P. D., 102, 189, 216, 226; 11 P. D., 162, 431, 510; 13 P. D., 242, 352, 398; 15 P. D., 79) ; No. 3 (14 P. D., 69) ; No. 7 (12 P. D., 17) ; No. 14 (15 P. D., 328). See Death Cause : Nos. 5, 10, 13, and 14 (11 P. D., 440 ; 12 P. D., 180 ; 13 P. D., 313, 342). See Declarations : Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8 (9 P. D., 40, 42, 93, 223, 272 ; 10 P. D., 177, 365 ; 11 P. D., 315 ; 14 P. D., 426, 434). See Dependent Parents: Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 (10 P. D., 78. 244, 299; 11 P. D., 171, 247; 12 P. D., 27, 361, 509; 13 P. D., 432; 15 P. D., 18, 100. 106, 172, 194). See Dependent Widows : Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (9 P. D., 1. 2, 76, 249, 254, 299, 320, 318, 502; 10 P. D., 9, 67, 28, 32(> : 12 P. D., 40, 266: 13 P. D., 31, 125, 448; 14 P. D., 80, 281, 360; 15 P. D., 127, 203, 257, 329). See Desertion : No. 1 (9 P. D., 382) ; No. 2 (9 P. D., 144, 155; 10 P. D., 355 ; 11 P. D., 13 ; 12 P. D., 80) ; No. 3 (9 P. D., 416) ; No. 4 (12 P. D.. 4.50; 15 P. D.. 63) ; No. 4(b) (14 P. D., 380; 15 P. D., 525) ; No. 4 (c) (13 P. D., .346; 14 P. D., .5.52) ; No. 4 (f) (14 P. D., 3.52; 15 P. D., 437) ; No. 5 (12 P. D., 137) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 276). See DismvALTY : No. 1 (9 P. D., 146, 279. 294, 3(>6; 10 V. D., 72, 210; 15 I'. D., 76, 369) ; No. 9 (13 P. D., 249. 2.59) ; No. 10 (14 P. D., 104, 422) ; No. 11 (13 P. D., 349, 395 ; 15 P. D., 337). See Disability: No. 3 (9 P. D., (>8, 106, 156, 263) ; No. 4 (11 P. D., 179) ; No. 6 (11 P. D., 38, 505) ; No. 8 (12 P. D., 319). See Discharge: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (9 P. D., 123, 311; 10 P. D., 14, 82; 14 v. D., 283, 326, 413). See Divorce: No. 8 (14 P. D., 99). See Evidence: No. 10 (15 P. D., 41). See B^ee: Nos. 1, 3, 14, 23, 25 (11 P. D., 508; 9 P. D.. 136; 11 P. D., 514; 14 P. D., 276; 10 P. D., 428). See Helpless Minor: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (9 P. D., 9, 26, 353, 452 ; 10 P. D., 22, 224, 368 ; 12 P. D., 365, 527 ; 14 P. D., 331 ; 15 P. D., 407). See Identity: No. 2 (12 P. D., 28). See Marriage: Subtitle Delaware (14 P. D., 527) ; subtitle Florida (14 P. I)., 383) : subtitle Louisiana (14 P. D., 344) ; subtitle New York (13 P. D., 157) ; subtitle North Carolina (12 P. D., 287) ; subtitle South Carolina (15 P. D., 411) ; subtitle Texas (15 P. D., 399) ; subtitle Virginia (14 P. D., 445; No. 3 (a) (12 P. D., 106) : No. 10 (9 P. D., 30; 10 P. D., 266; 11 P. D., 488; 13 P. D., 338: 14 P. D., 347) ; No. 13 (14 P. D., 497) ; No. 14 (9 P. D., 251 ; 11 P. D., 73) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 441; 12 P. D., 159; 13 P. D., 70; 14 P. D., 383). See Minors: Nos. 1, 2 (9 P. D., 151 ; 10 P. D., 124; 11 P. D., 448; 12 P. D., 25, 511 ; 13 P. D., 148, 151 ; 15 P. D., 28). See Practice: Nos. 2, 3, 10, 13 (9 P. D., 71, 169; 10 P. D., 458; 11 P. D., 451; 15 P. D., 486). See Rank : (9 P. D., 406 ; 11 P. D., 34). See Rate and Rating: Nos. 2, 3, 8 (9 P. D., 404, 413, 486; 10 P. D., 176, 2.56, 261, 397, 414: 12 P. D., 331). See Reduction : No. 2 (9 P. D., .344). See Rerating: No, 3 (13 P, D., 233). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 115 See Service: Nos. 5, G, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 (9 P. D., 119, 126, 207, 297, 346, 466, 21, 182, 395, 304, 15; 10 P. D., 8, 270, 18; 11 P. D., 141, 282, 206, 435; 12 P. D., 273, 367, 226, 466, 351, 500, 407; 13 P. D., 230, 237, 226, 330. 46; 14 P. D., 63, 249, 257, 494, 71, 346, 515, 388 ; 15 P. D., 366, 198, 232, 340, 294, 281) ; No. 22 (15 P. D., 548). See Vicious Habits : Nos. 1, 2 (9 P. D., 252 ; 15 P. D., 427). ACT OF JULY 1, 1890. See Declarations :• No. 4 (10 P. D., 292). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891. See Fee: Nos. 1, 11 (11 P. D., 508; 10 P. D., 412). ACT OF JULY 14, 1892. See Aid and Attendance: No. 1 (9 P. D., 307, 349, 423, 481) ; No. 2 (10 P. D., 172; 12 P. D., 77, 215, 299) : No. 3 (11 P. D., 473, 503). See Commencement : No. 2 (9 P. D., 503 ; 10 P. D., 66). See Notice: No. 2 (12 P. D., 21). ACT OF JULY 27, 1892. See Desertion : No. 1 (9 P. D., 382). See Service : No. 3 (15 P. D., 23, 44, 51, 124, 130, 201, 375, 394, 396). ACT OF JANUARY 5, 1893. See Commencement: Nos. 8, 9, 10 (9 P. D., 322; 11 P. D., .380; 14 P. D., 40, 420). See Fee : Nos. 17, 19 (13 P. D., 75 ; 15 P. D., 273 ; 12 P. D., 525). See Increase : Nos. 2, 7 (10 P. D., 64; 14 P. D., 285). See Powell's Battalion : No. 1 (9 P. D., 172). See Service: No. 4 (15 P. D., 158). ACT OF DECEMBER 21, 1893. See Notice: No. 2 (12 P. D.. 21). See Rate and Rating : No. 12 (9 P. D., 165). See Helpless Minor : No. 3 (15 P. D., 478). ACT OF MARCH 2, 1895. See Accrued Pensions: Nos. 1. 2, .3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (9 P. D., 8, 276, 393; 11 P. D., 241, .3.51 ; 12 P. D., 208, 405). See Attorneys : No, 12 (11 P. 1)., 49). See Certificate of Medical Examination : No. 1 (t) P. D., 4). See Reimbursement : No. 3 (12 P. D., 289). See Rate and Rating : No. 4 (15 P. D., .550). ACT OF MARCH 6, 1896. See Appeals: No. 3 (10 P. D., 250). See Practice: Nos. (>, 9, 1(5 (10 P. D„ 73, 321 ; 11 P. D., 122). See Rerating; No. 3 (13 P. D., 283). 116 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ACT OF MARCH 13, 1896. See Accrued 1»ension : No. 7 (12 P. D., 208). See Evidence: No. 10 (9 P. D., 201; 11 P. D., 197; 12 P. D., Ill; I'i P. D., 347). ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1897. See Commencement: No. 9 (14 P. D., 420). ACT OF MARCH 30, 1898. See Commencement: No. 11 (12 P. D., 428). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899. See Attorneys: No. 18 (10 1'. D., 23ti, 408). See Construction of Statutes: No. 1 (11 P. D., 77, 90). See Divorce: No. 4 (18 P. D., 286). See Division of Pension: The whole chapter: also 11 P. D., 255, 260, 288, 877 ; 12 P. D., 7, 56, 168, 287, 268, .88(>, 864, 870, 412, 421, 490, 507 ; 18 P. D., 24, 77, 120, 184, 142, 148, 177, 180, 205, 212, 218, 288, 270, 297, 301, 302, .347, 363, 888, 411, 422, 424, 430; 14 P. D., 1, 45, 120, 127, 130, 136, 146, 150, 159, 177, 191, 230, 234, 313, 334, 338, 367, 885, 894, 404, 472, 479, 521 ; 15 P. D., 14, 21, 88, 56, 82, 90, 111, 123, 182, 136, 148, 218, 221, 246, 298, 342, 382, 450, 496, 557). See Evidence: No. 11 (11 P. D., 52.3, 524). See Limitation: No. 5 (12 P. D., 479). See Marriage: No. 1 (14 P. D., 17, 48); subtitle Minnesota (15 P. D., 236). See PaYxMent of Pension : No. 3 (13 P. D., 22). See Practice: Nos. 1, 10, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26 (15 P. D., 96; 18 P. D., 211, 847 ; 12 P. D., 44, 157, 225, 411 ; 13 P. D., 203, 206, 299, 542 ; 14 P. D., 8). ACT OF APRIL 23, 1900. See Commencement : No. 10 (14 P. D., 40). ACT OF MAY 9, 1900. See Commencement : No. 14 (15 P. D., 328). See Dependent Widows: No. 3 (13 P. D., 81) ; No. 4 (12 P. D., 266; 13 P. D., 448 ; 14 P. D., 80, 281, 360 ; 15 P. D.. 127, 203). See Discharge : No. 4 (15 P. D., 378). ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 7 (14 P. D., 362). See Divorce: No. 6 (14 P. D., 438; 15 P. D., 128). See Fee: No. 18 (12 P. D., 5, 29). See Restoration : No. 2 (12 P. D., 114. 189, 816, 510; 13 P. D., tl8. 286. 855, 878, 485 ; 14 P. D., Ill, 128, 194, 198, 318, 411, 452 ; 15 P. D., 381, 446). ACT OF JUNE 27, 1902. See Service : No. 8 (15 P. D., 23, 44, 50, 51, 124, 130, 201, 375, 394, 396). PKNSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1]7 ACT OF JANUAEY 15, 1903. Sec Kate and Uatix(; : No. 5 (15 P. D., 207). ACT OF MARCH 2, 1903. See Amputation : No. '2 (15 1*. D., 402). See Disability : No. 10 (14 P. D.. 508). vSee Rate and Rating : No. 10 (14 P. D., 524). See Rerating: No. 4 (14 P. D.. 215). ADMISSIONS. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 5 (13 P. D., 357: 14 P. D., 84, 219). See Evidence: No. 8 (10 P. D., 80). See Marriage: No. 3 (b) (10 P. D., 297: 12 P. D., 312, 417) ; No. 3 (e) (10 P. D.. 423: 11 P. D., 139, 158: 12 P. D., 182, 338). ADJUDICATION. See Nonresidents: No. 1 (9 P. D., 437). ADULTEROUS COHABITATION. See Dependent Parents: Nos. 3, 10 (10 P. D., 153; 15 P. D., 335). See Estoppel: No. 4 (15 P. D., 47). See Marriage: No. 15 (13 P. D., 173). Index: 1. Generally. 2. Under act of June 27, 1890. 3. Widow not entitled on account of minors. 4. Act August 7, 1882, construed. 5. The widow's admissions. 6. Evidence required. 7. Forfeits right to restoration. 8. When forfeiture commences. 9. Subsequent morality can not restore. 10. When not a violation of the act. 1. Generally. Adulterous cohabitation — Act August 7, 188^. (Elizabeth Smith, widow, 9 P. D., 324.) The evidence shows that from 1887 to about 1898 the appellant and one Daniel Boston lived together in a small tenement con- sisting of two rooms; that a part of the time they lived there alone, and the remainder of the time a small boy lived with them ; that it was the general opinion among their immediate neighbors that they were living as man and wife ; that on several occasions the appellant stated that Boston was her husband, and that they, in fact, were not legally married. Held: That the facts are sufficient to justify the action of drop- ping her name from the pension roll under the act of August 7, 1882. 118 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 2. Under Act of June 27, 1890. Adulterous cohabitation — Forfeiture, (Ann Fagin, widow, 9 P. D., 62.) The adulterous cohabitation of a widow subsequent to the pas- sage of the act of August 7, 1882, Avorks a forfeiture of her pen- sion, or right to a pension under the act of June 27, 1890. Adulterous cohabitation. (Matilda Baker, widow, 9 P. D., 116.) The open and notorious adulterous cohabitation of a widow bars her right to pension under the act of June 27, 1890, on account of her husband's death. Adulterous cohabitation — Act August '/, 1882. (Matilda Ague, 9 P. D., 327.) 1. The provisions of section 2 of the act of August 7, 1882, are applicable to widows' claims under section 3 of the act of June 27, 1890. 2. Adulterous cohabitation of a soldier's widow, on or subse- quent to August 7, 1882, terminates her pensionable status as effectually as her remarriage. 3. Section 2 of said act of August 7, 1882, is in no sense a penal statute, nor is it to be construed according to the rules of con- struction of penal statutes, but is remedial and is liberally construed. 3. Widow not Entitled on Account of Minors. Adulterous cohabitation — M^idoiv''s increase on account of minors. (Elvira Hall, widow, 9 P. D., 17.) As it is accepted that the widow has no title to individual pen- sion under act of June 27, 1890, by reason of open and notorious adulterous cohabitation, she has no title to the $2 per month additional allowed the widow under said act for each minor until arriving at the age of 16 years. 4. Act August 7, 1882, Construed. Adulteroiis cohabitation — Act of August 7, 1882. (Kebecca Kil- bee, widow, 10 P. D., 286.) Adulterous cohabitation of a soldier's widow, on or subsequent to August 7, 1882, terminates her pensionable status. Section 2 of said act of August 7, 1882, is in no sense a penal statute, nor is to be construed according to the rules of construc- tion of penal statutes, but is remedial and is liberally construed. Matilda Ague (9 P. D., 327). The words '' adulterous cohabitation " in said act are not used in their strict legal sense, but in their popular signification, to indicate the open and notorious illicit intimacy indicative of immorality. Alice Gray (7 P. D., 134). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 119 5. The Widow's Admissions. Adulterous cohabitation — Evidence — -A dmissions — Special Exam- iner's conduct. (Annie Snyder, widow, 18 P. D., 857.) The dropping of a pensoner's name from the rolls for open and notorious adulterous cohabitation solely upon her alleged admis- sions to a special examiner is error. It is not the province of a special examiner to seei^ to entrap or discredit any claimant. His duty is to assist in obtaining the facts in any case without espousing the cause of either the claim- ant or the Government. He must be fair, impartial, and diligent to obtain the truth, irrespective of who it benefits or injures. Adulterous cohabitation — Evidence — Admissions. (Emily Clag- gett, widow, 14 P. D., 84.) The admissions or confession of the claimant in this case do not show such conduct on her part as would bar her, under the act of August 7, 1882, from a pension under the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890, as the same was not open and notorious. AdvlteroHs cohabitation — Special examiner'^s conduct. (Annie Snyder, widow, 14 P. D., 219.) The only evidence of open and notorious adulterous cohabita- tion by chiimant is her reported confessions to a special examiner, which she swears she never made, but that said special examiner falsely put the same in her statement and did not read that part of it to her. The evidence taken on a second examination shows claimant to be an upright, moral, and chaste woman, and no person could be found who had even a suspicion that she had committed an immoral act. 6. Evidence Required. Adulterous cohabitation — Marriage and divorce — Impediment. (Annie L. Tripp, widow, 14 P. D., 242.) 1. The fact that claimant kept house for a second cousin after his wife's death and lived with him for sixteen years, together with the testimony of one witness who says he saw them both coming out of the same bedroom one morning, is not sufficient to establish the claim that such claimant lived in open and notorious adulterous cohabitation, in the face of the denial of each of the parties, corroborated by the evidence of the postmaster and the near neighbors of claimant, who say they never heard of any immoral conduct between said parties, and that they were con- sidered and believed to be upright, honorable, and moral people. 2. The fact that claimant, prior to her marriage to the soldier, lived for nineteen years with one Burch in the relation of hus- band and wife and bore him six children, coupled with the fact 120 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. that they separated and each thereafter married again, and testi- mony showing that the agreement between Burch and claimant was that they should live together as husband and wife so long as they could agree, is not sufficient to establish a common-laAv marriage. 7. Forfeits Right to Restoration. Adulterous cohabitation — Act of August 7, 1882 — Marriage. (Julia Eddington, as widow, 14 P. D., 362.) The act of March 3, 1901, is dependent in many respects upon prior legislation, but it in no respect repeals or modifies the act of August T, 1882. The adulterous cohabitation of a widow subsequent to the pas- sage of the act of August 7, 1882, works a forfeiture of her right to a pension under the act of March 3, 1901. 8. When Forfeiture Commences. Adulterous cohabitation — Act of August 7, 1882 — Restoration — Estoppel — Termination — Minors. (Ann Spence, widow, 15 P. D.,48.) Claimant's pension was granted from August 10, 1879, and made to terminate on August 6, 1882, on account of her open and notorious adulterous cohabitation with one Hague. As her adul- terous cohabitation did not commence until September 22, 1883, she is entitled to pension to that date, though pension for that period was paid to the minors. 9- Subsequent Morality Can Not Restore. Adulterous cohabitation — Restoration — Reformation. ( Lucy 'Brooks, widow, 15 P. D., 96.) Appellant's original claim, filed on January 31, 1898, was re- jected on the ground that she had forfeited her title to pension by a violation of the provisions of the act of August 7, 1882. A second declaration for pension was filed on March 18, 1902, supported by evidence to the effect that claimant had been of good moral character for the last five years prior to the filing of said second declaration. Held: That such evidence is insufficient to support a claim after the appellant had been dropped from the rolls on the ground above stated. 10. When Not a Violation of the Act. Marriage and divorce — Act of August 7, 1882 — Impediment. (Watie D. Conklin, widow, 12 P. D., 258.) Claimant married Harrison Conklin in 1862, and he died in the service in 1864. John Conklin married Jane Conklin in PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 121 18G4, and while she was living and undivorced married the claim- ant herein in 1866. The testimony shows claimant to liave had no knowledge of the first marriage of John until after his death in 1895, having lived with said John as his wife for nearly thirty years, and having reared a family of four children. Held: Claimant is the widow of Harrison Conklin, and is en- tirely free and blameless from any charge of open and notorious adulterous cohabitation with John Conklin. The act of August 7, 1882, is founded upon a condition imply- ing vitiated morals and a lack of chastity, and does not reach those whose matrimonial relations are illegal from an abstract technical standpoint only and are not tainted with moral turpi- tude. AGE. References. See Disability: No. 4 (11 P. D., 179). See Marriage: subtitle Michigan (14 P. D., .5.54) : subtitle Ohio (15 P. D., 225) : subtitle Tennessee (12 P. D., 4(>8). See Minors: No. 5 (12 P. D., 512). Index. 1. As a cause for pension. 2. Military age. 3. Over l(i, no title under new law. 1. As a Cause for Pension. Disability— Act June 27, 1890— Age. (J. Louis Will, 11 P. D., 179.) The fact that a claimant has attained the age of 65 years does not entitle him to pension, per se, under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, regardless as to what his mental or physical con- dition may be, and such was not the view^ expressed in the case of Francis P>ank (9 P. D., 68) ; but the evidence in this case dis- closing the fact that claimant is by trade a pattern maker, and that by reason of age, disease of heart, limitation of motion in knee and shoulder, enlarged veins of leg, and stiffness and limi- tation and atrophy of hand he is unable to follow said occupa- tion, the action rejecting his claim was error, and is rev.^rse.l. (Charles Stone, 8 P. D., 477, and William Featherly, 9 P. D., 106.) 2. Military Age. Desertion — Voidable enlistment — Minors. (Stephen F. Monthony, 11 P. D., 198.) In 1861 the enlistment of a minor under the age of 18 years was voidable, and a repudiation of such enlistment on the part 122 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. of the minor by the net of desertion would constitute no bar to pension on account of a disability incurred during the period of a second enlistment. Service — Enlistment — Military age. (Edward E. Napier, 11 P. D., 240.) This claimant being over 18 but under 21 years of age at the date of his enlistment in June, 1861, such enlistment was valid and binding upon him ; and any disability incurred by him dur- ing the term of such enlistment but after his desertion there- from and while serving in the United States Navy was not con- tracted in line of duty. Desertion — Military age — Oath of enlistment. (Nathan Loeb, alias Nathan Lyons, 11 P. D., 286.) Appellant's name was dropped from the roll on the ground that he was a deserter from a former enlistment. The conten- tion is that he was under 16 years of age at the time of his first enlistment in September, 1863, and is therefore not barred on account of such desertion. In his oath of enlistment he reported his age as 18 years. He is bound by this action. 3. Over 16, No Title under New Law. Minor'' s pension — Age — Act June 27^ 1890. (George W. Robin- son, minor, 12 P. D., 511.) It appearing that this appellant was over the age of 16 years at the date of the soldier's death, he has no title whatever to pen- sion under the provisions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890. AGE OF CONSENT. See Marriage: subtitle Ohio (15 P. D., 225); subtitle Tennessee (12 P. D., 468). APPROXIMATE AGE. See Minors: No. 5 (12 P. D., 512). AGGRAVATION AND RECURRENCE OF OLD DISABILITY. See Disability: No. 1 (9 P. D., 133). AID AND ATTENDANCE. See Commencement: No. 13 (14 P. D., 209). See Disability: No. 7 (12 P. D., 50). See Jurisdiction : No. 4 (13 P. D., 465). See Helpless Minor: No. 3 (15 P. D., 407). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 13, 24 (13 P. D., 192, 222). See Pbactice: No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). PENSION AND BOI^NTY-LAND CLAIMS. 123 See Rate and Rating : No. 8 (1") I*. D., 2<12). See Reduction: No. 2 (12 P. D., 244). Index. 1. Frequent aiul periodieal. 2. Rate. '\. Facts showing aid and attendance. 4. Commencement. 1. Frequent and Periodieal. Aid and attendance — Rate — Dimhility. (Ira W. Hay ford, 9 P. D., 807.) When it is established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that, on account of pensioned cause or causes, or any pathological sequelae thereof, the pensioner is not only " totally incapacitated for per- forming manual labor/' but can neither dress nor undress him- self without the aid and attendance of another person, as is shown by the evidence and certificate of medical examination in this case, the Department will construe the said aid and attend- ance as such "• frequent and periodical personal aid and attend- ance of another person '' as is contemplated by the provisions of the act of July 14, 1892, and as w^arranting the allowance of the rate prescribed in the said act. Aid and attendance — Rate. (John Johnson, 9 P. D., 349.) The soldier is now pensioned at $45 per month for loss of right arm at the shoulder joint. It is both claimed and shown that the w^ound which caused the loss of the right arm also caused destruction of the tissues about the shoulder joint to such an extent that it is necessary for the claimant to wear a pad or some other means of protection, in tlie adjustment of which the services of another person are required. ^Held: That inasmuch as the services of another person are re- quired at least twice daily, in the adjustment of the pad whicli the pensioner is compelled to w^ear over his right shoulder for its protection, the said services are considered as such " frequent and periodical personal aid and attendance of another person " as is contemplated by the act of July 14, 1892, and warrants allowance of the rate prescribed by the said act. Aid and attendance — Disability. (Frederick P. Goin, 9 P. D., 423.) Inasmuch as the preponderance of the evidence on file in this case warrants the presumption that the prisoner is so disabled by reason of his military service as to require the frequent and periodical, but not regular and constant, personal aid and attend- ance of another person, the action of reduction from the $72 rate to second grade, instead of to the rate prescribed by the act of 124 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. July 14, 1892, was error, and is, in so far as the amount of the reduction is concerned, rev^ersed; the decision of October 24, 189(), affirming the said a(;tion and departmental letter of July 28, 1897, overruling a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, are rescinded and set aside, and the j)apers in the case are remanded for readjudication and allowance of a rate com- mensurate with the degree of disability shown to exist and be- lieved to be of service origin. Aid and attendance— Rate. (Martin B. Fitch, 9 P. D., 481.) It appears from the evidence in this case that the disability of this appellant resulting from the pensioned rheumatism Avas practically the same at the date his pension was reduced from $72 to $80 })er month, and has so remained since that date, as it was when he Avas given his present rating of $50 per month under the provisions of the act of July 14, 1892, and is and has been such as to incapacitate the appellant for the performance of any manual labor, and necessitate the frequent and periodical, but not regular and constant, aid and attendance of another person : Held: That he is entitled to the rating of $50 per month from the date his pension was reduced to $80 per month, but is not entitled to restoration to the rate of $72 per month. 2. Rate. Aid and attendance — Rate. (Eppenetus W. Mcintosh, 10 P. D., 172.) The rate in this case was reduced from $72 per month to second grade upon evidence adduced upon special examination, showing that the former rating w^as excessive. The soldier is pensioned for " disease of spine and resulting curvature and insanity," and it is contended that by reason, of his mental condition it is necessary to have an attendant secretly follow and watch him when he appears in public for his protec- tion in case of necessity. Held: 1. That such personal aid and attendance of another person as it is contended is accorded the pensioner is necessarily based upon apprehension that it may be — not upon the fact that it actually is — needed, and it does not therefore come within the purview^ of the provisions of either the act of March 4, 1890, or the act of July 14, 1892. 2. The allowance of the $72 rate is not warranted merely be- cause insanity happens to be one of the disabilities for which pen- sion has been granted ; but the degree of helplessness specified by law must be shown to exist before title to said rate is established. (James Caton, 6 P. D., 159.) PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 125 2. Rate. Aid and attendance— Rate. (Laban W. Mclnturff, 12 P. D., 77.) The aid and attendance that appellant requires in putting on a coat or shirt, or in being taken home occasionally when ex- hausted, is not such as was contemplated by the acts of July 18, 1874, June 16, 1880, March 4, 1890, or July 14, 1892, providing rates of pension in excess of $30 per month. Aid and attendance— Rate. (Laban W. Mclnturtf, 12 P. D., 299.) The former decision in this case (12 P. D., 77) holding that " The aid and attendance that appellant requires in putting on a coat or shirt, or in being taken home occasionally when ex- hausted, is not such as was contemplated by the acts of July 18, 1874, June 16, 1880, March 4, 1890, or July 14, 1892, providing • rates of pension in excess of $30 per month," is adhered to on motion to reconsider. Aid and attendance — Rate — Acts of March S^ 1879^ and March 4, 1890. (Jacob S. Clark, 12 P. D., 70.) The act of March 3, 1879, as amendatory of the act of June 17, 1878, confers a statutory right to the $72 rate upon " all soldiers and sailors who have become totally blind from causes occurring in the service of the United States." The act of March 4, 1890, provides that such rate shall be paid to " all soldiers, sailors, and marines who * * * become so totally and permanently helpless from injuries received or dis- ease contracted in the service and line of duty as to require the regular personal aid and attendance of another person." Held: That inasmuch as the facts presented and the evidence adduced in the case at bar not only show that the appellant, who is pensioned at the rate of $50 per month for " disease of eyes, piles, and disease of heart, result of rheumatism," is, for all practical purposes, totally blind, but that he also both requires and has the regular aid and attendance of another person, by reason of the degree of disability due to such pensioned causes, he is entitled to the $72 rate under the provisions of each and both of the said acts, from December 13, 1899, the date of the certificate of the first medical examination showing not only entire absence of all useful vision, but total and permanent help- lessness as well. Aid and attendance — Rate — Act July i^ 1892. (William H. Jones, 12 P. D., 215.) By reason of gunshot wound of left arm and injury to right groin, received in the service and line of duty, resulting in a tumor weighing 40 pounds, claimant is totally incapacitated for 126 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the performance of any manual labor, and requires the aid and attendance of another person to dress and undress a portion of his body, in taking a bath, and, at times, to attend the calls of nature. 1. Held: That he is disabled in such a degree as to require the frequent and periodical, though not regular and constant, per- sonal aid and attendance of another person contemplated in the act of July 14, 1892, and is entitled to $50 per month. 2. The word " require," mentioned in the act of July 14, 1892, should be given its ordinary meaning, which is, " to make neces- sary " or " to need." Cases cited: Ira W. Hayford, 9 P. D., 307; Harrison B. George, 2()8 L. B., 410; John J. Hill, 7 P. D., 142; Edmond O. Beers, 7 P. D., 113, and Peter N. F. von Ottendorfer, 3 P. D., 341. 3. Facts Showing Aid and attendance — Rate — Evidence. (Joseph Lewis, 11 P. D., 473.) The appellant is pensioned at the rate of $30 per month (sec- ond grade) for gunshot wound of left arm and injury to left chest and resulting disease of heart, and epilepsy. From the facts presented in the case it is shown that he has frequent (almost daily) and severe epileptic seizures, necessita- ting the frequent and periodical personal aid and attendance of another person. Held: That the aid and attendance of another person which the appellant actually requires, as well as has, is such frequent and periodical aid and attendance of another person as is con- templated by the act of July 14, 1892, and entitled him to the rate prescribed in the said act from January 11, 1899, the date of the medical examination showing the necessity for such aid and attendance. 4. Commencement. Aid and attendance — Act July 11^^ 1892 — Eindence — Examining surgeons — Increase— Commencement. (John Blaisdell, 11 P. D., 503.) 1. The disability on account of which pension was granted, resulting from epilepsy, manifested by a clonic spasm of the ex- tremities, occurring but two or three times a year, is not deemed to exist in such a degree as to require frequent and periodical personal aid and attendance of another person. 2. Increase to $50 per month under the act of July 14, 1892, can only commence from the date of the certificate of the examin- ing surgeons showing such degree of disability made subsequent to the passage of said act. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. . 127 ALABAMA LAWS. ALIENS. See Declarations: No. 4 (10 P. D., 292). See Marriage: No. 2 (c). None. See Tables of State Statutes for 10 P. D. See Disloyalty: No. 1 (10 P. D., 72). ALLEGATIONS. See Declarations: No. 2 (11 P. D., 315). AMENDMENTS. See Declarations: No. 1, 2, 7, 9 (9 P. D., 40, 42, 93, 223, 272; 10 P. D., 177, 365; 11 P. IX, 315: 14 P. D., 93, 434; 12 P. D., 54; 15 P. D., 529). See Dependent Parents: No. 2 (15 P. D., 18, 100, 100, 194; 10 P. D., 78). AMPUTATION. References. See Disability: No. 9 (12 P. D., 477). See Pathological Sequence; No. 24 (13 P. D., 222). Index. 1. Rate, how determined. 2. Act March 2, 1903. 1. Rate, How Determined. Amputation — Act of August 4, J886. (Samuel Scott, 9 P. D., TO.) The nearness of an amputation to the shoulder joint or hip joint is the only condition to be considered in determining the right to the increase of pension to $45 per month provided by the act of August 4, 1886. It is held that if more than one-half of the humerus or femur is left the stump is of sufficient length to permit the use of an artificial limb. Amputation — Act of August 4, ^886. (John B. Anderson, 11 P. D., 1.) It having been established that the amputation of soldier's arm was made " at or above the middle of the arm bone " (humerus), the failure to show the exact line of section does not affect the status of the case, and pensioner w^as entitled to a pension at the rate of $45 per month instead of $36, under the provisions of the act of August 4, 1886, from the date of the passage of said act to the date of his death. (See case of John W. Curran, 5 P. D., 1.) Amputation — Act of August 4, -^886 — Rate. (Henry M. Capper, 14 P. D., 264.) The claimant's leg having been amputated below the middle of 128 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the thigh bone, and hence not " so near the hip joint as to prevent the use of an artificial limb," he was not entitled to the rate of $45 per month under the act of August 4, 1886. 2. Act of March 2, 1903. Disability — Amputation — Act of March 2^ 1903 — Artificial limb — Specific dimbility. (Aaron W. Kelley, 15 P. D., 402.) Claimant was pensioned at $36 per month for the loss of the left leg at the kneejoint, when his rate was increased to $46 per month under the act of March 2, 1903. He claims $55 per month under said act, because, as alleged, the leg is in such condition as to prevent the use of an artificial limb. Held: That the act of March 2, 11)03, so far as inability to wear an artificial. limb is concerned, refers to the condition of the arm or leg by reason of an amputation between the elbow and shoulder joint and knee and hip joint only. ANTEREBELLION SERVICE AND PENSIONS. Reference. See Limitation : No. 4 (10 P. D., 417). Index. 1. Disability— Origin. 2. Widow's pension. 1. Disability — Origin. Anterebellion service — Disability — Origin. (Matteo Bianchi, de- ceased, 9 P. D., 220.) 1. Evidence alone that a claimant was treated in the service for the disease causing the disability for which pension is claimed is not sufficient to establish a claim; the continuance of the disease and the extent to which it disabled for the perform- ance of manual labor must be shown. 2. As it appears that the disease causing the disability on ac- count of which pension was claimed was contracted prior to March 4, 1861, claimant in this case is not pensionable, for the reason that his application was not filed within three years from the date of his discharge and was not completed prior to his death, as required by section 4713 of the Revised Statutes. 2. Widow's Pension. Widow^s pension — Anterebellion service. (Elizabeth P'ritz, widow, 9 P. D., 193.) It appearing that the alleged death cause of the soldier was contracted prior to March 4, 1861, in time of peace, and not in service during any war, there is no provision of law granting PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 129 pension to his widow. (See Digest 1897, p. 500, 2 (a), and de- cisions there cited.) APOPLEXY. See Death Cause: No. 5 (11 P. D., 459). APPEALS. References. See Attorneys : No. 4 (10 P. D., 191 ; 13 P. D., 413 ; 14 P. D., 83). See Division of Pension: No. 15 (14 P. D., 472; 15 P. D., 218, 298). See Evidence: No. 11 (11 P. D., 523, 524). See Fee: No. 13 (10 P. D., 464). See Limitation : No. 2 (9 P. D., 152). See Practice: Nos. 1, 5, 10, 14, 17, 22, 24 (9 P. D., 64, 399; 10 P. D., 458 : 13 P. D., 40 ; 11 P. D., 325 : 12 P. D., 44, 157, 225, 411 ; 13 P. D., 299 ; 14 P. D., 364 ; 15 P. D., 96, .362). See Rerating: No. 6 (15 P. D., 299, 332, 333). Index. 1. Power of attorney requisite. 2. Can not ai)i)eal from a letter. 3. Must specify claim and the issue. 4. Refusal to recognize fee agreements. 5. Typewritten signature nil. 6. Where widow adopts appeal. 7. Rerating. 8. Attorney's opinion not sufficient. 1. Power of Attorney Requisite. Appeal — Attorneyship — Practice. (James E. Oram, 9 P. D., 132.) More than ninety days having elapsed since the attorney who filed this appeal was notified that he was not entitled to recogni- tion, and he has filed no appeal in his own behalf, the appeal will be dismissed under rule 1, Rules of Practice, upon the ground that said attorney has not filed a power of attorney authorizing him to enter the appeal. 2. Can Not Appeal from a Letter. Appeal — Practice — Final action. (Minors of William Hockey, 9 P. D., 164.) A letter from the Commissioner of Pensions, in response to a communication, reciting former action of the Bureau from which claimant had previously appealed, and which action had been affirmed on appeal and reaffirmed on motion for reconsideration, is not such final action of the Pension Bureau as will furnish a basis for another appeal. 3. Must Specify Claim and the Issue. Appeals— Practice. (Archibald F. Thomas, 10 P. D., 374.) 13070—06 9 130 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Where more than one claim by the same chiimant is involved in an adjudication an attorney in his appeal must specify which claim he desires reviewed. Appeals — Rerating — Act March 6, 1896. (Wesley Dalrymple, claimant; H. D. Phillips, attorney, 10 P. D., 250.) 1. In considering claims under the act of March 6, 189G, before the commencement of pension, granted after a former claim had been rejected, may date from date of filing such first declaration, it must be shown not only that at the date of filing such declara- tion he was suffering from a disability, but that such disability must be of a permanent character, rendering him unable to earn a support. 2. The printed form of appeal filed by H. D. Phillips in this and numerous other cases will not hereafter be considered, unless it contains material averments in addition to the printed matter, as it does not present any issue of fact and the issue of law has been decided. 4. Refusal to Recognize Fee Agreements. Appeal — Review — Fee agreertients — Difjiculty and trouble, (Annie Higgins, widow, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., at- torneys, 11 P. D., 519.) Upon appeal the papers in a claim will not be reviewed to determine whether the Commissioner of Pensions properly re- fused to recognize articles of agreement in a claim of difficulty and trouble, unless the facts as received on appeal present such showing as would Avarrant the belief that gross injustice has been done in refusing to recognize articles of agreement. 5. Typewritten Signature Nil. Appeal — Typewritten signature of attorney. (Katie Cousens, 13 P. D., 400.) As a general rule, an attorney's appeal on the merits of a claim which is signed only in typewriting will not be entertained unless accompanied by a duly executed power of attorney from the claimant authorizing such attorney to appeal, and will then be accepted as sufficient only for a review of such claim on its merits. 6. Where Widow Adopts Appeal. Appeal — Practice — Increase — Disahility — Third Grade — Evidence. (William McCracken, 13 P. D., 170.) 1. Where the attorney of record files an appeal in an invalid claim after a soldier's death, and the surviving widow thereafter executes a power of attorney to the same attorney empowering PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 131 him to prosecute said appeal and claim, she adopts said appeal as her own, and from that time on such attorney represents the widow and not the deceased soldier, and said appeal will be treated as a valid subsisting appeal made by the widow. 2. Soldier was pensioned under the general law^ at the rate of $17 per month by reason of a disability resulting from right inguinal hernia, rheumatism, and resulting disease of the heart. On August 15, 1900, he filed a claim for increase, which w^as re- jected on June 29, 1901, on the ground that $17 per month was commensurate to existing disability due to the causes on account of which he was pensioned. It is held that said action was erroneous for the reason that the certificate of medical examina- tion held under the pending claim disclosed the existence of a disability which was equivalent to the loss of a hand or a foot. 7. Berating. Practice — Appeal — Rerating — Dismissal. (Fieldon Sexton, 15 P. D., 265.) 1. Four separate claims for increase under the general law were filed and rejected in this case prior to filing this appeal, which fails to specify the rejection complained of, and it being impractical to determine to which one the appeal relates, the same, in so far as it relates to said actions, is dismissed. 2. Where an appeal from the rate of pension allowed under a claim for increase, also includes an objection to a rate granted under a prior claim or claims for increase under the same law, that part of the appeal relating to the former adjudication will be ignored, claimant's remedy being a claim for rerating. See case of Joseph A. Reese (731 P. L. B., 238). 3. In this case the admission of the claim under the act of June 27, 1890, and fixing the rate of pension thereunder, was a final action, and the filing of a claim for rerating as a prelim- inary to appeal was unnecessary, as an appeal lies from the action fixing the rate. 8. Attorney's Opinion not Sufficient. Practice — Appeal — Dismissal. (John Clark, 15 P. D., 410.) A mere opinion of an attorney that a pensioner is entitled to more than the rate allowed is not such a pointing out of error of law or fact in the action of the Commissioner of Pensions as will entitle to consideration of an appeal under rule 2 of the Rules of Practice. APPOINTED MAN. See Desertion : No, 4 (d) (15 P, D., 215). 132 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. APPOINTMENT. See JuBiSDiCTiON : No. 5 (13 P. D., 416). APPLICATIONS. See Fee: No. 18 (12 P. D., 5). ARMY NURSES. Army nurses^Service. (Millie, alias Minnie, Howard, now Payne, 9 P. D., 188.) Claimant admits, and the evidence shows, her work while in the hospital at Washington, D. C, during the war, was cleaning said hospital; gathering, washing, and putting away for use the bandages and bed clothing used therein ; carrying out slops, and such general work as directed ; the personal attendance upon and care for and administering of medicines to the inmates being by white nurses only. Claimant is colored. Held: Claimant's services were not " nurse " services as contem- plated by the act of August 5, 1892. ARKANSAS LAWS. See LEGrriMACY : No. 5 {VI P. D., 102). See Marriage: Subtitle Arkansas (15 P. D., 223, 488). See Divorce: No. 3 (11 P. D., 406). ARTIFICIAL LIMB. See Amputation : No. 2 (15 P. D., 402). ARREARS. See Commencement : No. 12 (12 P. D., 49). See Construction of Statutes: No. 2 (10 P. D., 99). ARTERIO SCLEROSIS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 2 (12 P. D., 453). ARTICLES OF SEPARATION. See Division of Pension : No. 7 (12 P. D., 364). ARIZONA TERRITORY, LAWS OF. See Divorce: No. 3 (11 P. D., 226). ASSIGNMENT. See Attorneys : No. 1 (10 P. D., 143; 14 P. D., 186). ASTHMA. See Pathological Sequence: No. 3 (12 P. D., 443). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 183 ATTENDING PHYSICIAN. See Evidence: No. 12 (11 P. D., 301). ATTESTATION. See Attorneys : No. 5 (9 P. D., 362). ATAXIC PAEAPLEGIA. See Pathological Sequence: No. 16 (14 P. D., (542). ATTORNEYS. Refefences. See Appeals : Nos. 1, .3, 4, 5, 6 (0 P. D., 1,32; 10 P. D., 374, 2.50; 11 P. D., 519; 13 P. D., 400, 170). See Dependent Parents : No. 9 (15 P. D., 172). See Division of Pension : No. 13 (13 P. D., 2.33). See Fee: Nos. 6, 7. 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23 (9 P. D., Ill; 10 P. D., 144; 9 P. D., 170, 377 ; 10 P. D., 357 ; 12 P. D.. 2.39 ; 11 P. D., 496 ; 11 P. D., 392 ; 12 P. D., 5, 29 ; 14 P. D., 276). See Fee Agreement: No. 1 (11 P. D., 150). See Limitation : No. 3 (10 P. D., 421). See Practice: Nos. 8, 20, 26 (10 P. D., 390; 13 P. D., 206). Index. 1 . Assignment of attorneyship. 2. Abandonment of claim by. 3. Contract for illegal fee void. 4. Death of claimant. 5. Defective power of attorney void. 6. Examination of papers and evidence by. 7. Entitled to fee. 8. Evidence — vicious habits. ■ . 9. Forfeiture by. 10. Fee. 11. Material service. 12. Must collect fee from claimant. - 13. Neglect generally. 14. Neglect by, in increase claims. 15. No power of attorney — no fee. 16. Power of attorney when operative. 17. Representatives of. 18. Recognition of. 19. Who recognized in elective claims. 20. Recognition of, operates to restore when. 1. Assignment of Attorneyship. AttoTmeyship — Assignment — Substitution. (John W. Short, claimant; James T. Knowland & Son, attorneys, 10 P. D., 143.) " The written consent of a claimant is declared essential to a valid assignment of an attorneyship or agency from one attorney or agent to another * * * ^? (Rule 2, Rules of Practice be- fore the Commissioner of Pensions.) 134 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Attorney shij) — Substitution — Power of Attorney. (Minors of James T. Kyle, claimants; W. W. Dndley & Co., attorneys, 14 P. D., 186.) * For the purpose of transferring the attorneyship in a claim for pension by one attorney or agent to another it is not necessary that an attorney be clothed with power of substitution by the claimant. (Overruling Esther Geddings, 30 F. P. L. ; Bk., 374.) 2. Abandonment of Claim by. Attorneyship — Abandonment — Practice. (Hardy (libson, claim- ant, Mark W. Brown, attorney, 15 P. D., 109.) The statement by an attorney in his certificate to the verifica- tion of an affidavit by a witness, before him as such officer, that he was in no wise interested in the claim for pension described in said affidavit, or connected with its prosecution, is conclusive upon the question as to his abandonment of the claim if he has been connected with its prosecution. 3. Contract for Illegal Fee Void. Fee — Attorneys — Fee contracts — Act June 27^ 1890. (Antonio Romero, claimant, Jose L. Ribera, attorney, 15 P. D., 184.) A contract between a claimant and an agent or attorney for the payment of a fee in excess of $10 in a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, is invalid. 4. Death of Claimant. Attorneyship — Death of client. (Margaret Hawkins, widow, 10 P. D., 191.) Where a claimant dies prior to the final rejection of pension claim by the Bureau of Pensions the authority of the attorney of claimant is terminated; and without further authority from those succeeding to the right, in whole or in part, of the deceased claimant, the attorney has no right, power, or authority to appeal from such Bureau action. (See cases of Phineas D. Judson, 8 P. D., 185; Americus Mayo, 7 P. D., 531; James Keating, il)id., 280; J. Ambler Smith and Samuel H. Lewis, ibid., 69.) Attorneyship — Death of claimant — Practice. (Bates T. Certain, 13 P. D., 413.) AVhen a claimant dies after the claim has been rejected, those prosecuting such claim under a power of attorney can not further prosecute said claim without first procuring a power of attorney so to do from those succeeding to the right. Atto7meys — Appeals — Practice — Death of principal. (Charles E. Landon, 14 P. D., 83.) 1. Where, during the lifetime of his principal, the attorney of PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 135 record files an appeal in his behalf, the act being the act of the principal under the law of agency, the appeal is properly before this Department and may not be dismissed on the ground that the death of the principal, subsequent to the filing of the appeal, terminates the relation of principal and agent. In such cases the filing of the appeal is soldier's act. 2. In those cases where the claimant dies subsequent to the ac- tion of rejection and before an appeal has been filed, the power of attorney not surviving, the attorney for claimant may not file an appeal because the agent can not do what his principal can not do; and the principal, being dead, is unable to take any further step in the prosecution of his claim. (Distinguishing this case from the case of Bates T. Certain, 13 P. D., 413,) 5. Defective Power of Attorney Void. Attorneyship— Power of attorney — Fee. (J. F. Vinal, attorney, Elishup P. Allen, insane, claimant, 9 P. D., 19.) 1. A power of attorney to prosecute a pension claim executed by a claimant after having been judicially declared insane, or while confined in an asylum for the insane, will not be recog- nized, and the attorney filing the same should be so notified. (Case of Joel Ames, 8 P. D., 171.) 2. Evidence filed by a duly authorized attorney when not en- titled to recognition is actual service, and it inures to his benefit if he becomes entitled to recognition at any time before the claim is prima facie complete, and may entitle him to a fee. Attorneyship — Power of attorney. (James M. Mulhollan, claim- ant, W. H. Mussee, attorney, 9 P. D., 38.) A valid power of attorney filed in the Bureau at a time when no claim is pending in behalf of the person granting the same, and to which it may be applicable, does not entitle an attorney therein named to recognition as against another who subse- quently is duly authorized by the same person to prosecute a claim for pension and has filed one in his behalf, to which both powers of attorney are applicable. Attorneyship — Power of attorney — Attestation. (Rebecca C. Vin- ing, claimant, 9 P. D., 302.) A power of attorney to which the signature of the claimant is not attested by two witnesses confers no authority upon an agent or attorney to appear in a pension claim, and without such au- thority a person can not have title to a fee. 6. Examination of Papers and Evidence by. Attorneys — Examination of record. (H. S. Berlin, 9 P. D., 471.) The practice which prevails in the Bureau of Pensions of deny- 136 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ing to claimants or their authorized attorneys the right to exam- ine the evidence obtained by special examination, except that relating to criminal charges and investigations, is unjust to claimants and unwarranted by law; and all orders or instruc- tions which have that effect are revoked. Attorneys — Examination of papers — Special examiners^ reports — Evidence. (William C. Lewis, 15 P. D., 163.) Attorneys are not entitled to inspect written communications by special examiners to the Commissioner of Pensions, accom- panying the return of evidence adduced before them on special examination. 7. Entitled to Fee. Fee — Attorneyship — Forfeiture — Prima facie case. (Annie E. Meyers, Avidow, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 11 P. D., 392.) AATiere an attorney has prima facie established a claim for pension, and no call for additional evidence has been made, he has earned the fee, though subsequently to his death another attorney filed evidence, for which the Bureau could have issued a call. 8. Evidence — Vicious Habits. Attorney'' s forfeiture — Evidence. (Jerome Fetterly, claimant; Taber & AVhitman, attorneys, 10 P. D., 460.) First. Attorneys are required to call up a pension claim within a year from the time they prima facie completed it, if another attorney has appeared in the claim during said year; but if no other has appeared in the claim until after the expiration of said period, then the attorney of record will have preserved his rights, provided he has filed a call slip at any time before the appearance of such other in the claim and subsequent to its completion. Second. Evidence as to nonvicious habits is not required in claims for increase of pension under the act of June 27, 1890, based upon disability due to diseases or when based upon dis- ability due to hernia, varicocele, and varicose veins which have developed in the ordinary pursuits of the claimant and are not due to traumatic causes. 9. Forfeiture by. Attorneyship — Forfeiture — Fee. (Eliza Jacob, claimant; J. H. Vermilya <& Co., attorneys, 9 P. D., 213.) As the appellants have, under rule 12, forfeited the attorney- ship by neglecting the case for more than one year, they are not entitled to further recognition. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 137 Attorney ship — Fee. (William Boate, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 9 P. D., 375.) ^^Tien in a claim for straight increase, an order for medical examination has not been obeyed, and the attorney of record has been so notified and takes no further action in the case, and makes no satisfactory explanation of such failure within ninety days from the date of such notification, he is held to be in neglect and his attorneyship forfeited; and where subsequently another attorney files a new application for increase, secures an order for medical examination, with which the claimant complies, upon the allowance of the claim from date of such examination the latter attorney should be paid the fee. Attorney shif — Forfeiture — Recognition. (John Quinn, claimant; J. B. Cralle & Co., attorneys, 11 P. D., 25.) The following rule laid down in the case of Ezra Garner, dated November 26, 1898, and in the case of John Dennert, dated July 30, 1898, is affirmed, viz: Where an attorney who has been rec- ognized by the Bureau subsequently has been denied recognition does not appeal for recognition within a reasonable time there- after, he thereby forfeits all rights he may have in the case from the time he w^as so notified. The rule does not contemplate attorneys contesting for recog- nition whose rights would become forfeited upon their failure to call up a case at proper intervals. Attorneys — Forfeiture — Recognition. (Samuel E. Van Antwerp, claimant; C E. Foote, attorney, 13 P. D., 444.) Where an attorney has rendered no material service in a claim for more than one year, and by such failure is in default, the Bureau may properly refuse to accord him further recognition although the claimant has not appointed another attorney to continue the prosecution of the claim. 10. Fee. A ttorneys — Recognition — Default — Material Service. ( William H. Rhodes, claimant; W. W. Dudley & Co., attorneys, 14 P. D.,273.) Where an attorney has rendered no material service in a claim for more than one year and thereby becomes in default, the Bureau may properly refuse to accord him further recognition although the claimant has not appointed another attorney to continue the prosecution of the case. Attorneyship — Fee — Rule 13 — Appeals — Practice. (Luther C. Kane, claimant; Patrick H. Coney, attorney, 14 P. D., 328.) When, upon the rejection of a claim for pension, evidence is filed by a contesting attorney, bearing upon the ground of rejec- tion within the time allotted by rule 13 to the attorney of record 138 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. to file such evidence, the filing thereof inures to his benefit the same as though he himself had performed the service. 11. Material Service. Attorneyship — Material service — Neglect. (James K. Polk, attor- ney; Daniel B. Ford, claimant, 9 P. D., 137.) 1. As the appellant acquired the attorneyship, rendered mate- rial service, and was not in neglect when the claim was allowed, he is entitled to a fee. 2. The filing of a declaration in response to a call therefor by the Bureau, if filed at a time when deemed necessary and mate- rial, though subsequently deemed immaterial, is such service as may entitle an attorney to a fee. Practice — Evidence. (Thomas J. Edwards, claimant; C. E. Foote, attorney, 9 P. D., 340.) Where two or more claims for pension are pending in behalf of the same person, instruments of evidence filed by an attorney will not inure to his benefit as material service rendered in more than one claim unless he indorses upon said instruments, or sets forth in their contents, the seATral claims to which they are in- tended to apply. Attorneys — Material service — Declarations — Increase. (Alfred Carpenter, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 11 P. D., 429.) AYliere two declarations for straight increase are filed in behalf of a pensioner they do not constitute the basis of different claims, unless a medical examination was held between the dates on which the declarations were filed or unless the claim based on the first declaration is disposed of without holding a medical ex- amination, and thereafter a second declaration is filed; with these exceptions declarations for increase filed subsequently to the first until a medical examination is held are but duplicates of the first declaration and the filing thereof is not material service. Attorneys — Fee — Material service — Declaration. (John Fitzpat- rick, claimant; Patrick H. Coney, attorney, 11 P. D., 490.) The filing of an amendatory declaration in a claim for original pension under the act of June 27, 1890, at any time prior to the holding of a medical examination, is material service and may entitle an attorney to the fee. Attorneys — Material service — Order No. 60. (John Benson, claim- ant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 12 P. D., 221.) The filing of a declaration in a claim for reissue to correct the date of the commencement of increase under the act of January 5, 1893, at any time prior to November 18, 1901, the date of the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 139 approval of Order No. 60, is deemed material service and may entitle an attorney in such claim to a fee. The filing of a declaration, motion, or evidence by an attorney in behalf of a claimant to secure reissue to correct the date of commencement of pension under the act of January 5, 1893, at any time prior to the allowance of such reissue by the Bureau on its own motion, is deemed material service and may entitle such attorney to a fee. Fee — Material service — Attorneys. (Uzal Barker, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 15 P. D., 492.) The filing of evidence to show the marriage of claimant and soldier, though filed in the widow's claim, was material service rendered in the invalid claim, as such evidence had not been filed in the latter, and the filing thereof was necessary to show title in the claimant to the invalid pension which had accrued to the date of the soldier's death. 12. Must Collect Fee from Claimant. Attorneys — Fee — Accrued pension act March ^, 1895 — Payment. (John C. Hobson, deceased, claimant; S. W. Daugherty & Co., attorneys, 11 P. D., 49.) An agent or attorney rendering services in proceedings under the act of March 2, 1895, in behalf of a person entitled under its provisions to the accrued pension on a certificate of pension of a deceased pensioner, must look to the person by whom he is em- ployed for payment for his services. Case of George Aab (9 P. D., 377) is overruled. 13. Neglect Generally. A ttorneysJiip — Neglect — Practice — Forfeiture. ( William Easter, claimant; William Fletcher & Co., attorneys, 14 P. D., 172.) When an attorney is in neglect through failure to file evidence in compliance with a call of the Bureau, a waiver of compliance therewith subsequently to the appearance of another attorney in the chiim does not operate to relieve said attorney of the charge of neglect. Attorneys — Recognition — Neglect. (Robert H. Ball, cLaimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 14 P. I)., 228.) An attorney, in order to preserve his indioate right to recogni- tion, nnist render some service, at least call up the case at inter- vals of one year or less until he is formally recognized by the Bureau, or until the claim is allowed. 14. Neglect by, in Increase Claims. Attorneys — Neglect — Fee — Increase. (McKinzy Harshfield, claim- ant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 11 P. D., 492.) 140 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. The rule that Avheii a claimant does not comply with an order for medical examination, and thereupon the fiulure of the at- torney on notice thereof to file the claimant's request for the issuance of another order constitutes neglect, is limited in its application to claims for straight increase. 15. No Power of Attorney — No Fee. Attorneyship — Power of attorney — Practice. (Anna L. McBride, claimant; H. D. Phillips, attorney, 9 P. D., 338.) As the appellant never filed any instrument which conferred upon him any rights in the case, action denying him a fee was proper. 16. Power of Attorney, When Operative. Attorneys — Power of attorney. (Miel Hilton, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 13 P. D., 27.) A power of attorney in a claim for pension becomes operative only from the time complete evidence of its proper execution is filed in the Bureau while the claim is pending to which it is intended to apply. 17. Representative of. Attorneys — Representatives of attorneys. (Charles and William B. King, 9 P. D., 478.) 1. Under the authority conferred by the act of July 18, 1894, it is suggested the instructions of the Bureau be modified to the extent that representatives of recognized attorneys who have written authority from their employers be granted the same privilege of examining the certificates of examining surgeons as is provided by law for the attorneys in person. 2. Hereafter, under section 471 of the Revised Statutes,* all orders or circulars affecting the rights of claimants, or their properly accredited attorneys, shall be submitted to the Secre- tary of the Interior for his information and approval prior to their promulgation. 18. Recognition of. Attorneys — Recognition — Act March S^ 1899. (Wife of Hiram A. Davis, claimant, Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 236.) In a claim under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1899, an attorney is entitled to recognition upon filing proper evidence of his authority to prosecute said claim. Attorneyship — Recognition. (Joseph Lane, alias Joseph Simpson, claimant; E. S. Weeden, attorney, 11 P. D., 422.) When the Bureau has adjudged that one of several contesting PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 141 attorneys is entitled to recognition, and such others acquiesce in said decision, further recognition can not be denied the one and accorded to any of such others on the ground that the one did not conform to the rules in regard to formal service at a time prior to the decision of the Bureau upon which his title to recog- nition is based. Attorney — Recognition — Act March J, 1899 — Fee — Payment. (Margaret E. Davis, claimant, v. Hiram A. Davis, pensioner; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 403.) 1. The Commissioner of Pensions can not refuse recognition to agents or attorneys regularl}^ employed by wives or minor chil- dren of pensioners who have deserted their wives or children, under the act of March 8, 1899, when such agents or attorneys are authorized to practice before the Department. 2. The method of making payment to agents or attorneys for services in prosecuting an application for the divided payment of a pension under said act is not controlled by sections 8 and 4 of the act of July 4, 1884 (28 Stat., 98), but is matter of agreement and adjustment between the parties, over which, in the absence of abuse or misconduct on the part of the agent or attorney jus- tifying disbarment, the Commissioner of Pensions has no au- thority. 8. Agents and attorneys rendering services in proceedings under said act must look to those by whom they are employed, and not to the Pension Bureau, for payment for their services. Attorneyship — Power of attorney — Recognition. (Louisa J. Hosier, claimant; E. E. Armstrong, attorney, 15 P. D., 817.) In the absence of a power of attorney in writing, such as is specified by the Rules of Practice, an attorney is not entitled to recognition in a claim for pension. 19. Who Recognized in Elective Claims. Attorneys — Recognition — Practice — Election. (John Kite, claim- ant; Lewis Heininger, attorney, 14 P. D., 269.) A claim under the act of June 27, 1890, which has been ap- l^roved for admission and the issue of certificate is subject to the election of soldier to receive pension under said act, and, when he does not elect to receive pension thereunder, is the same as a rejected claim with respect to the rights of attorneys appearing therein and of those who subsequently file claims for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, in his behalf. The action of the Bureau, therefore, in refusing to accord rec- ognition to the appellant, he being the first to file a valid decla- ration and power of attorney subsequently to the admission of a 142 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. claim in which the issue of certificate was subject to the election of the soldier to receive pension under the act of June 27, 1890, which he did not elect to receive, was error. 20. Recognition of, Operates to Restore When. A ttorneyship — Neglect — Recognition — Fee. ( Charles Evans, claimant; Daniel L. Bedinger, attorney, 15 P. D., 359.) The recognition by the Bureau, in a claim for pension, of an attorney who is in neglect at a time when another is entitled to recognition will operate to restore the former to his attorney- ship rights upon the default of the latter. BACTERIOLOGY. Seo Death Cause: No. 11 (12 P. D., 342). See Pathological Sequence: No. 7 (12 P. D., 118). BEATY'S INDEPENDENT SCOUTS. See Service: No. G (9 P. D., 297; 11 P. D., 141). BLINDNESS. See Line of Duty : No. 4 (10 P. D., 87G; 12 P. D., 269). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 14, 20 (13 P. D., 307; 11 P. D., 307). BOUNTY. See Desertion : No. 4 (b) (14 P. D., 375, 380, 466; 15 P. D., 116, 525). BOUNTY LAND. References. See Digest of 1897, title " Bounty land." Index. 1. Section 2444, Revised Statutes. 2. Not entitled to over 160 acres. 3. What service entitles. 4. When title lapses. 1. Section 2444, Revised Statutes. Bounty land — Lost warrant — Section 2Ii,Jf,i., Revised Statutes. (Sister of Ezekiel Larkins, deceased, 12 P. D., 184.) The question of the validity of a warrant is not affected by the fact that the warrantee was dead at the date of the issue, and the decision in the case of the Heirs of Panter Laws (2 P. D., o. s., 291), and cited in Digest of 1897, page 67, which held that "a warrant issued after the death of the warrantee named therein is void," is hereby overruled. The action appealed from in this case is reversed, the case reopened, and claimant will be afforded an opportunity to prove the loss of the warrant issued to the soldier February 26, 1852, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 143 2. Not Entitled to Over 160 Acres. Bounty land — Act of March 3^ 1855 — Service. (Sion Morris, 15 P. D., 62.) The claimant having received warrant for 160 acres of land is not entitled to warrant for any additional amount because of ad- ditional service. 3. What Service Entitles. Service — Bounty land — Act of March 3^ 1855 — China. (Thomas H. White, 15 P. D., 147.) Service on the U. S. S. Plymouth and an alleged engagement in China in 1852 is not such service as was contemplated by the act of March 3, 1855, and does not entitle claimant to a bounty-land warrant under said act. Bounty -land service — Sections 21^.18., 2Jf2Jf^ and 2Jf28 of the Revised Statutes — Acts of February 11^ 181^7^; and March 3, 1855. (Meta G. Thornton, widow, 15 P. D., 312.) This claimant has no title to bounty land under sections 2418 and 2424 of the Revised Statutes, as the deceased soldier, in the Mexican war, was not a commissioned officer, nor title under the act of February 11, 1847, as he served under a twelve months' enlistment, for less than twelve months, and his discharge prior to the termination of the war was not because of wound, injury, or sickness, but upon the request of his friends; nor title under section 2428 of the Revised Statutes, or under the act of March 3, 1855, because she was not a widow on the latter date. In construing a section of the Revised Statutes which is of doubtful meaning, resort may be had to the original law from which it was taken. Bounty land — Act of March 3, 1855. (Meta G. Thornton, widow, 15 P. D., 351.) Claimant's husband having died since the passage of the act of March 3, 1855, without filing a claim for bounty land, she has no title under its provisions. The Revised Statutes of 1873 do not enlarge or in any way modify the provisions of said act or affect title thereunder. Bounty land — Acts of Fehruary 11^ 18Jt.7^ and March 3, 1855 — Legal representatives — Service — Mexican war — Construction. (Meta G. Thornton, widow, 15 P. D., 561.) In the consideration of a widow's claim for bounty land under the act of March 3, 1855 (sees. 2425 and 2428, R. S.), it is imma- terial whether the soldier died before or after the passage of the act. (Overruling decision in the case of Matilda Kerren, 7 P. D., 443.) The claimant is not entitled to bounty land under said act for the reason that her husband's service was not performed at 144 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the seat of war. And she has no title under the act of February 11, 1847, as he was discharged before the expiration of his term of enlistment and not by reason of wounds or sickness. 4. When Title Lapses. Bounty land — Succession — Title — Practice. (Ernie Sullivan, ad- ministratrix, 14 P. D., 415.) Both the soldier and those named in the bounty-land law as successively entitled to receive a warrant on account of his service having died without claiming such warrant, the title thereto has lapsed. ' BOARD OF ENROLLMENT. Service — Commissioner of Board of Enrollment. (Lucius De Witt Morse, 11 P. D., 183.) This appellant's service was rendered as a commissioner of the board of enrollment of the Second Congressional district of the State of Missouri. He filed an application for pension under the provisions of the general pension law on account of disease alleged to have been contracted during said service, and also an application for pension under the provisions of the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, on account of said service. Held: That there is no provision of law^ granting pension for disease contracted while serving as commissioner of board of enrollment, and that such service is not a pensionable service under the provisions of the second section of the act of June 27, 1890. BRIEF FACE. See Practice: Nos. 1, 23 (15 P. D., 486; 14 P. D., 162). BURDEN OF PROOF. See Desertion: No. 4 (b) (14 P. D., 375). See Evidence: No. 1 (13 P. D., 437) ; No. 9 (11 P. D., 102). See Marriage : No. 1 (10 P. D., 446 ; 12 P. D., 296 ; 14 P. D., 17, 43). See Pathological Sequence: No. 15 (13 P. D., 112). CALIFORNIA LAWS. See Marriage: subtitle California (11 P. D., 144; 14 P. D., 265; 15 P. D., 103) ; No. 11 (15 P. D., 459). See Tables of State Statutes. CATARRH. See Death Cause: No. 12 (13 P. D., 372). See Pathological Sequence: No. 21 (11 P. D., 480). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 145 CATARRH AND BRONCHITIS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 17 (14 P. D., 201), CATARRH AND GENERAL PARALYSIS OF THE INSANE. See Death Cause: No. 12 (13 P. D., 372). CAYTJSE INDIANS. See Service: No. 3 (15 P. D., 396). CANCER. See Pathological Sequence: No. 4 (12 P. D., 422). CASE OF DIFFICULTY AND TROUBLE. See Fee : Nos. 8, 22 (10 P. D., 147; 14 P. D., 199). CAUSE OF DISABILITY. See Pathological Sequence: No. 20 (11 P. D., 307). CEREMONY. See Marriage : subtitle Delaware (14 P. D., 527). CEREBRO-SPINAL SCLEROSIS. See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 1, 19 (15 P. D., 150; 10 P. D., 39). CEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE. See Death Cause: No. 5 (11 P. D., 388). See Pathological Sequence: No. 3 (12 P. D., 443). CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY. See Evidence: Nos. 7, 8 (10 P. D., 196, 319; 12 P. D., 264; 13 P. D., 84). CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION. See Evidence: No. 2 (9 P. D., 333). Certificate of medical examination — Rating^ Act March ^, 1895. (William H. Farmer, 9 P. D., 4.) In the absence of medical examination describing a disabling cause it can not be presumed, under the act of March 2, 1895, that it was the opinion of the board of examining surgeons that no pensionable disability existed. CHRONIC DIARRHEA. See Death Cause : No 2 (15 P. D., 354). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 2, 14, 19 (12 P. D., 453; 10 P. D., 39; 13 P. D., 307). 13070—06 10 146 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. CHRONIC ASCENDING NEURITIS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 23 (11 P. D., 151). CHEROKEE DISTURBANCE. See Service: No. 3 (15 P. D., 23). CHEROKEE NATION. See Divorce : No. 8 (12 P. D.. 474). See Marriage : No. 8 (13 P. D., 308). See Tables of State Statutes for 12 P. D. CHOCTAW NATION. See Marriage: No. 8 (15 P. D., 283). See Tables of State Statutes for 15 1*. D. CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. See Dependent Widow : No. 2 (12 P. 1>., 40). CHYLURIA PARASITICA. See Death Cause: No. 2 (15 P. D., 354). CIVIL DEATH. See Marriage: No. 4 (i) P. D., 5). CIVIL CODE. See Marriage: No. 2 (p) (15 P. D., 530). CIVILIANS. See Service : No. 7, 18, 23 (9 P. D., 194, 300, 346, 347, 300, 460 ; 10 P. D., 169, 182 ; 15 P. D., 366 : 12 P. D., 351 ; 13 P. D., 226). CITIZENSHIP. See Marriage: No. 8 (15 P. D., 283). CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. See Service : Nos. 7, 18, 23 (9 P. D., 194, 300, 346, 347, 360, 466; 10 P. D., 133, 169, 182 ; 15 P. D., 366 ; 12 P. D., 351 ; 13 P. D., 226). CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. See Evidence: No. 10 (10 P. D., 289). COHABITATION. See Marriage: subtitle Kentucky (12 P. D., 497); subtitle Massa- chusetts (14 P: D.. 456) ; subtitle Michigan (14 P. D., 417; 15 P. D., 240) ; subtitle Oregon (11 P. D.. 427) ; subtitle Virginia (13 P. D., 146; 14 P. D., 445) ; No. 10 (13 P. D., 338) ; No. 2 (e) (15 P. D., 253, 493) ; No. 2 (r) (15 P. D., 464). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 147 COHABITATION AND REPUTE. See Marriage : subtitle Massachusetts (14 P. D., 450); subtitle Oregon (11 P. D., 427) ; No. 2 (r) (15 P. D., 464). COLORED MARRIAGES. See Legitimacy : No. 4 (15 P. D., 386) ; No. 7 (14 P. D., 474). See Marriage: subtitle Florida (14 P. D., 383) ; subtitle Mississippi (13 P. D., 57; 14 P. D., 476) ; subtitle South Carolina (15 P. D., 411) ; No. 7 (9 P. D., 127, 209) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 36, 75, 157, 254, 362, 441 ; 11 P. D., 167, 181, 443 ; 12 P. D., 159, 447 ; 13 P. D., 70, 129, 140, 173 ; 14 P. D., 156, 288, 383, 436, 491, 537 ; 15 P. D., 11, 30). COLORED PERSONS. See Dependent Parents: Nos. 1, 4 (10 P. D., 104; 12 P. D., 131). See Marriage: subtitle South Carolina (15 P. D., 411) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 157; 11 P. D., 181, 443; 14 P. D., 156, 288). COLORED TROOPS. See Service : No. 24 (15 P. D., 198, 281, 294). COLORED OR INDIAN SOLDIERS IN KENTUCKY. See Legitimacy : No. 4 (15 P. D., 386) ; No. 7 (14 P. D., 474). See Marriage : No. 15 (10 P. D., 157, 441 ; 12 P. D., 159, 447). COLORADO LAWS. See Marriage: subtitle Colorado (15 P. D., 253; 15 P. D., 493). See Divorce : No. 3 (10 P. D., 434) ; No. 10 (15 P. D., 553). See Tables of State Statutes for 15 P. D. COLLUSION. See Divorce: No. 10 (15 P. D., 553). COMBINED RATES. See Practice: No. 23 (14 P. D., 162). See Rate and Rating: No. 4 (10 P. D., 185; 15 P. D., 550). COMPOUNDING RATES: See Rate and Rating; No. 6 (10 P. D., 2^1 ; 11 P. D., 165). COMBINATION OF CAUSES. See Death Cause: Nos. 2, 5 (9 P. D., 113, 129, 266, 359; 15 P. D., 303, 354; 10 P. D., 202; 11 P. D., 62, 106, 220, 388, 459). COMMENCEMENT. See Aid and Attendance: No. 4 (11 P. D., 503). See Appeals : No. 3 (10 P. D., 250). See Declarations : No. 8 (14 P. D., 7). See Division of Pension : No. 6 (12 P. D., 370). See Fee: No. 17 (13 P. D., 75). 148 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. See Increase: No. 5 (13 P. D., 290). See Limitation : No. 1 (9 P. D., 160, 504; 14 P. D., 489). See Practice: Nos. 9, 13, 19 (10 P. D., 73; 11 P. D., 451; 13 P. D., 304). See Rate and Rating : No. 7 (10 P. D., 443). See Service : No. 8 (15 P. D., 232) ; No. 22 (15 P. D., 548). See Special Act: No. 1 (11 P. D., 424). Index. 1. Under act June 27. 1890. 2. Under act July 14. 1892. 3. Section 4698i, Revised Statutes. 4. Increase for new disability. 5. Under section 4713, Revised Statutes. 6. Under act March 3, 1879. 7. Of increase. 8. Under act January 3, 1893. 9. Under acts February 5, 1897, and January 5, 1893. 10. Acts April 23, 1900, and January 5, 1893. 11. Under act March 30, 1898. 12. Under special act. 13. Under act March 4, 1890. 14. Under act May 9, 1900. 1. Under Act of June 27, 1890. Commencement rate — Reduction — Act June 27^ 1890. (Galen Peters, 9 P. D., 102.) The evidence in this case fairly shows that a pensionable degree of disability entitling claimant to $12 per month under the act of June 27, 1890, and on account of Avhich he was pensioned at such rate from September 23, 1896, existed at the time of filing his first application, July 9, 1890, and his pension should have dated from said first application, deducting payments made. Commencement, Act June 27, 1890 — Minors. (Minors of David S. Sharer, deceased, 9 P. D., 189.) 1. Pension to minors under section 3, act of June 27, 1890, must commence from date of application therefor. 2. Where one or more minors is insane, idiotic, or otherwise permanently helpless he shall not be deprived of his share of the joint pension upon arriving at the age of 16 years while there are other children under that age, but shall continue to receive the same as if he were still under 16. But this rule shall apply only to future payments. Commencement — Minors — Act of June 27, 1890. (Minor of Joseph Speedy, 15 P. D., 79.) Pension to minors under act of June 27, 1890, must commence from date of filing claim therefor. Commencement, act June 27, 1890 — Increase. (Rollin Ijewis, 9 P. D., 216.) PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 149 Pension under the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, must commence from the date of tiling of the declaration, pro- vided a pensionable degree of disability is shown to have existed on that date ; but where such pensionable degree of disability did not exist at date of filing the declaration, but it appears that sub- sequent to the filing of such declaration and before a medical examination was had an applicant became pensionably disabled, another declaration must be filed. Commencement of helpless minor^s pension under act of June 27^ 1890. (Minor of Jonathan Talbert, 9 P. D., 226.) Pension to an insane, idiotic, or otherwise permanently helpless minor under section 3 of the act of June 27, 1890, can not be made to commence prior to the date of filing the declaration therefor after the passage of said act. Commencement — Act June 27^ 1890 — Minor'' s pension. (Minors of Simeon W. Dare, 11 P. D., 431.) 1. The construction of the act of June 27, 1890, under which a minor's pension is made to commence from the date of filing the application therefor, in a case in which there was a prior widow pensioner who has died or remarried, is adhered to. 2. The application, filed in October, 1895, which was rejected as an application under the general law, is held to have been an application under the act of June 27, 1890, and the date of filing said application is the correct date of commencement of the minor's pension. Declaration — Act June 27., 1890 — Commencement. (Mary J. Fisk, widow, 11 P. D., 162.) Pension under section 3 of said act can commence only from date of filing of declaration subsequent to the soldier's death, and a declaration executed by the wife prior to his death is null and void. Commencement — Act of June 27^ 1890. (James McHarry, 11 P. D., 510.) Original invalid pension granted under the provisions of sec- tion 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, must commence from the date of filing an apj)lication therefor, and the action of the Bureau in commencing the pension in this case from the date of the examin- ing surgeon's certificate of examination w^as error. Commencement — Act June 27., 1890. (George W. Prentice, 13 P. D.,242.) Claimant was pensioned from date of his second medical exam- ination upon his original application, instead of from the date of application. 150 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Held to be error, and that his pension should have been allowed from date of his application. Commencement — Act June 27^ 1890 — Declaration — Rate. (Oscar B. Edwards, 13 P. D., 352.) The pension was properly allowed from the date of filing the supplementary or amendatory affidavit, inasmuch as it was mani- festly impossible for the claimant to prove that disease of heart (independent of which he was not disabled) existed at the time of filing the formal prior declaration. The rate allowed is not, in the opinion of the Department, commensurate with the degree of the claimant's inability, to earn • a support by manual labor. Com^mencement — Declaration — Act June ^7, 1890. (Christine Coomer, widow, 13 P. D., 398.) The w^idow executed a declaration for pension December 24, 1900, and the same was filed February 4, 1901, from which latter date pension was allowed. From this action she appealed, con- tending that it should be allowed to commence on the date of executing the declaration therefor. A pension under section 3 of the act of June 27, 1890, can com- mence only from the date of filing of declaration in the Pension Office subsequent to the soldier's death. 2. Act of July 14, 1892. Commencement — Increase — Act July 7^? 1892. (John M. John- son, 9 P. D., 503.) There is no authority of law for commencing the $50 rate prior to the date of the certificate of the examining surgeon or board of examining surgeons showing the requisite degree of dis- ability, made subsequent to the passage of the act of July 14, 1892. C orrbmencement — Increase — Act of July IJ^^ 1892. (John Johnson, 10 P. D., 66.) Increase to the intermediate grade ($50) provided by the act of July 14, 1892, must, by the express terms of the act, commence from the date " of the certificate of the examining surgeon or board of examining surgeons showing such degree of disability, and made subsequent to the passage of '' the act. 3. Section 4698^, Revised Statutes. Commencement — Section 4698^, Revised Statutes — Grade Rate. (Charles H. Flourney, 9 P. D., 259.) Appellant pensioned for rheumatism and resulting disease of heart filed a claim for increase September 12, 1895, which w^as allowed at third grade ($24 per month) from November 27, 1895, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 151 dato of the certificate, of the medical examination made under the pending chiim. lie contends the increased rate should com- mence from October 24, 1891, as the evidence of two physicians showed that on that date his disability w^as equivalent to the loss of a hand or a foot. It is held that as claimant's disability is not permanent and specific his increase of pension was properly made to commence from the date of the certificate of medical examina- tion made under the pending claim, showing the increased dis- ability as provided by section 4698^ of the Revised Statutes. Commencement — Increase — Act June 27, 1890 — Section 1^698^ of the Revised Statutes. (John Middleton, 14 P. D., 69.) Increase under the act of June 27, 1890, must commence from the date of medical examination, as provided by section 4098^ of the Revised Statutes, showing an increased inability to earn a support by manual labor. 4. Of Increase for New Disability. Commencement of increase — New disability. (Stephen Hiett, 9 P. D., 313.) A\Tiere a pensioner under the law" of July 14, 1862, files an application for additional pension, based on a newly alleged cause of disability, not specific, such claim, if allowed, dates from the time of filing such application, and not from the date of the examining surgeon's certificate establishing a pensionable degree of disability from said newdy alleged cause. In such cases the date of commencement is governed by the proviso in section 2 of the act of March 3, 1879, and not by sec- tion 4698^, Revised Statutes. 5. Under Section 4713, Revised Statutes. Commencement — Sections 1^730 and 1^713^ Revised Statutes. (Wil- liam McClain, 11 P. D., 175.) Under the provisions of .section 4713, Revised Statutes, pen- sion, if allowed, could only commence from date of filing the last material evidence necessary to complete the claim. 6. Under Act of March 3, 1879. Rate — Dependent relatives — Commencement. (Eliza Hodgman, mother, 11 P. D., 18.) A dependent mother who claims by reason of death, of service origin, is entitled to a rating of but $12 per month when the origin of the death cause was contracted while soldier was a pri- vate, notwithstanding the fact that said soldier afterwards be- came a commissioned officer. The right to a pension is not a vested right. The date of com- 152 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. mencement of ji dependent mother's pension, under the general law, is governed by the act of March 8, 1879. 7. Of Increase. Commencement — Increase — Renewal — Act June 27^ 1890. ( Andrew B. Cleveland, 12 P. D., 17.) Appellant was a pensioner under the act of June 27, 1890, at the rate of $6 per month, when a claim under the general law, filed by him August 22, 1888, was allowed at the rate of $6 per month from the date of filing the claim, and his name was accord- ingly dropped from the roll under the act of June 27-, 1890, and placed on the roll under the general law. While in receipt of pension under the general law he filed, January 30, 1892, a claim for renewal and increase under the act of June 27, 1890, which was allowed at $12 per month from the date of the medical examination, February 3, 1895, and his name was dropped from the roll under the general law. He appealed, contending that the increased rate of pension granted him should have commenced from the date of filing his declaration, January 30, 1892. It is held that the claim for renewal of pension under the act of June 27, 1890, and increase, his title to pension under said act not having been denied, was not an original claim under said act and the allowance of the same was a renewal of the pension originally granted, and that the increase of the rate of pension was, under section 4698| of the Revised Statutes, properly made to commence from the date of the certificate of the medical examination held under the pending claim (citing the cases of George Baltzer, 10 P. D., 37; Timothy L. Carley, 7 P. D., 12, and James J. Durkee, 8P. D., 152). 8. Under Act of January 5, 1893. Commencement — Increase — Act of January 5, 1893. (Daniel Web- ster Levan, 9 P. D., 322.) The date of commencement in Mexican war claims for increase under said act is in each claim the day on which the case is legally approved by the Board of Review. As this rule was followed in the action upon this claim, the same was proper, and is affirmed. Increase — A ct of January J, 1893 — C ommencement. ( Robert Mark- wood, 11 P. D., 380.) The increase of pension provided by the act of January 5, 1893, for survivors of the Mexican war who have been pensioned under the provisions of the act of January 29, 1887, or the act of March 3, 1891, should be made to commence from the date, subsequent to the date of the approval of the act granting said increase, at PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 153 which it shall have been established by the proof that the con- ditions of disability and destitution existed which are designated in said act as entitling such pensioners to the increase of pension therein provided. The decisions of this Department of May 19, 1894, in the case of Collins, alias Crossweight (L. B. 125, p. 82) ; June 8, 1894, in the case of Harmon (L. B. 129, p. 7) ; September 13, 1895, in the case of Hope (L. B. 182, p. 400) ; and May 7, 1898, in the case of Levan (9 P. D., 322),' and all similar decisions and holdings are hereby overruled and set aside, and Order No. 231 of the Commis- sioner of Pensions is disapproved and abrogated. 9. Act February 5, 1897— Act January 5, 1893. Commencement — Act of February 5, 1897 — Act January 5, 1893 — Mexican war — Gray^s battalion. (Jasper N. Armstrong, 14 P. D.,420.) Members of Gray's battalion, Arkansas Volunteers, have no right to pension prior to the act of February 5, 1897, and they are entitled to a $12 rating under the act of April 23, 1900, from such date, when the evidence shows them to be in the physical and financial condition required by the act of January 5, 1893, as held in the case of Markwood (11 P. D., 380). Same case in 14 P. D., 285, modified. 10. Act April 23, 1900— Act January 5, 1893. Commencement — Act of April 23^ 1900 — Act of January 5, 1893 — Mexican war. (Daniel Eveland, 14 P. D., 40.) The act of April 23, 1900, in extending all of the benefits of the act of January 5, 1893, to pensionable Mexican war survivors who are entitled to a service pension, carries with it the benefit of hav- ing the pension commence from the same date as those under the last-mentioned act; and the rule for such date is found in the opinion in the case of Robert Markwood (11 P. D., 380). 11. Under Act of March 30, 1898. Commencement — Act of March 30^ 1898 — &ea pay — " The Maine.'''' (Harriet Adams, mother, 12 P. D., 428.) In the case of an enlisted man killed by the explosion of the steamship Maine^ February 15, 1898, his sea pay for one year thereafter can not be paid to his dependent parents under the special act of March 30, 1898, and a pension be allowed his de- pendent mother for the same year, or for any portion thereof. 12. Under Special Act. Commencement — Special act — Arrears. (Fidillar White, alias William Johnson, 12 P. D., 49.) 154 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. The beneficiary under a special act of Congress, if the act does not fix date of commencement, must draw pension from the date of said act. Commencement — Special act — Section Jf720^ Revised Statutes. (John Vogler, 13 P. D., 331.) As this pension was granted by special act of Congress and the act did not specify the date at which pension should commence, the same was properly commenced from the date oi the passage of the act, in accordance with section 4720, Revised Statutes of the United States. 13. Under Act of March 4, 1890. Commencement — Act of March 4? 1890 — Aid and attendance. (John C. Stevens, 14 P. D., 209.) Where an application for original invalid pension was filed subsequent to March 4, 1890, and the claimant was, at the date of filing such application, so totally and permanently helpless from injuries received or disease contracted in the service and line of duty as to require the regular personal aid and attendance of an- other person, he is entitled to receive the rate of $72 per month from said date (of filing the application). 14. Under Act of May 9, 1900. Commencement — Act of May 9, 1900 — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Mary D. Gardner, widoAv, 15 P. D., 328.) There is no authority in law for making the date of commence- ment of a widow's pension under the act of May 9, 1900, other than that of the date of the filing of the application under said act. A claimant may not be entitled under the act of June 27, 1890, and yet be entitled under the act of May 9, 1900, the bases of dependency under the said acts being different. COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE. See Service: No. 8 (15 P. D., 2.32). COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ENROLLMENT. See Board of Enrollment : No. 1 (11 P. D., 183). COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS. See Accrued Pension : No. 4 (11 P. D., 351). See Jurisdiction : No. 1 (11 P. D., 348). See Medical Examinations: No. 2 (14 P. D., 450). See Vicious Habits: No. 2 (15 P. D., 427). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 155 COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE. C'onimoii-Iaw iiiarriages are recognized as valid in all the States and Territories excepting : California. — Not since 1895. Connecticut. — Status doubtful. Delaware. — Not valid ; see Payne's Digest, title Marriage, sub- title Delaware (14 P. D.. 527). Kentucky. — Not valid. Louisiana. — See Payne's Digest, title Marriages, subtitle Louis- iana (14 P. D.. :}44). Maryland.— Not valid ; modified ; see Payne's Digest, title Mar- riage, subtitle Maryi^ani) (14 I*. D., ~>'M)) ; also same (15 P. D., 404). Massachusetts.— See Payne's Digest, title Marriage, subtitle Mas- sachusetts (14 1*. D., 450). North Carolina. — Status doubtful. New York. — Before, but not since .January. 1002. Rhode Island.— Status doubtful. Virginia. — Not valid. Washington. — Not valid. West Virginia. — Not valid, but see Sarinda Davis (widow) (15 P. D., 447). CONDUCT. See Estoppel: No. :\ (14 P. D.. 409). CONNECTICUT LAWS. See Marriage: Subtitle Connecticut (14 P. D., .3.55: 15 P. D., 290). See Tables of State Statutes for 1 5 P. D. CONSANGUINITY. See Marriage: No. 2 (bb) (10 P. D.. 889). CONSCRIPTION. See Disloyalty : Nos. 5, (11 P. D., 252; 12 P. D.. 45). CONFEDERATE SERVICE. See Disloyalty : Nos. 1, 2, .3, 4, 5. 0, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (9 P. D., 140, 279, 294. 800; 10 P. D., 72, 80, 125. 210; 11 P. D.. 04. 124. 1.30, 2.52, 290, .327; 12 P. D.. 12, 45 ; 13 P. D., 128, 248, 2.59, .349, 895 ; 14 P. D., 104, 422 ; 15 P. D.. 70, 809, 887). CONSTRUED. See Construction OF Statutes. CONTINUANCE. See Death Cause: No. 18 (18 P. D., .313). CONSOLIDATION OF CLAIMS. See Fee: No. 10 (10 P. D., 140). 156 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. CONTRIBUTIONS. ' See Dependent Parents: No. 4 (12 P. L)., 181; 14 P. D., 271). CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. See Bounty Land : No. 3 (15 P. D.. 561). See Death Cause: No. (10 P. D., 90). See Dependent Parents: No. 8 (12 P. D.. 401). See Dependent Widows: Nos. 8, 5 (18 P. D.. 81 : 10 P. D., 28; 15 P. D., 324). See Disloyalty : No. 9 (18 P. D., 249, 259). See Division of Pension: Nos. 1, 18 (12' P. D., 108; 14 P. D., .8.88; 15 P. D., 82, 221, 382). See Minors: No. 1 (11 P. D., 448). See Rank: No. 2 (11 P. D., 34). See Restoration : No. 2 (15 P. D., 381). See Special Act : No. 2 (18 P. D., 95). Index. 1. Act of March 8. 1899. 2. Si>ec'ial net. 1. Act of March 3, 1899. Construction — Act March 3, 1899 — Deserted wife — Retroactive laws. (Mary Ann Rothery o. Henry N. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77.) The act of March 8, 1899, is prospective, not retroactive, in its operation, and the desertion named therein refers only to such as occurs subsequent to the passage of the act. The word " deser- tion " in said act is used in its general legal sense, and means the willful withdrawal of one of the married parties from the other or the voluntary refusal of one of the married parties to renew a suspended cohabitation, without legal justification. Construction — Act March 3, 1899 — Retroactive laws — Deserted wife. (Catharine Richards v. James J. Richards, 11 P. D., 90.) 1. To entitle the deserted wife of an invalid pensioner to receive one-half the pension of her husband under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1899, it must appear that she has been deserted by said pensioner for a period of over six months subse- quent to the date of the passage of said act, said act being wholly prospective and not retroactive in its operation and character. (See case of Mary Ann Rothery v. Henry N. Rothery, Company D, Fifth U. S. Artillery, certificate No. 309464, decided Septem- ber 5, 1900, and to be published in vol. 11, P. D.) 2. The application of Catharine Richards under the act of March 3, 1899, for one-half the pension of this appellant, James J. Richards, having been filed in the Pension Bureau on April 15, 1899, less than six months from the date of the passage of said act, was premature, ineffective, and void, no legal rights whatever having accrued to her on said date under the provisions of said act. i PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 157 2. Special Act. Con^struction — Special act — Arrears — Rating. (Alonzo B. Chat- field, 10 P. D., 99.) A special act approved June 8, 1898, entitled "An act to con- strue an act approved June 3, 1884/' rerating and including the disability of claimant " with that of a class of pensioners who have lost an arm at or above the elbow ; " and providing that said act of June 3, 1884, " be construed to be continuous in its provisions," and that " the Commissioner of Pensions is hereby instructed to reenter and continue the name of said pensioner on the roll with the class of pensioners mentioned in said act, at the rate of pen- sion provided for said class, from and after the passage of this act," is not retroactive in its effect and does not authorize an increase of pension prior to the approval of said act, nor does it authorize a rerating or the granting of arrears of pension. CONTRACT. See Dependent Widow : No. 1 (15 P. D., 257). See Marriage: No. 2 (p) (12 P. D., 382). CONTRACT SURGEON. See Service: Nos. 7, 20 (10 P. D., 133; 14 P. D., 515). COOPERATION WITH THE NAVY. See Service: No. 11(10 P. D., 401). CREDIBILITY. See Division of Pension : No, 18 (15 P. D., 123). CRUELTY. See Division of Pension: No. 4 (14 P. D., 394) ; No. 13 (15 P. • . 450). CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See Death Cause: No. 2 (15 P. D., 303). 1. Death Cause. Contributory negligence — Death cause. (Winnifred J. Cook, widow, 9 P. D., 12.) A person disabled by deafness who adopts a railroad track as a highway of travel is required to exercise that care and caution , which ordinary prudence would dictate to a person in his condi- tion in order to avoid harm or peril, and a failure to do so is contributory negligence; and where a soldier is killed by a pass- ing train while pursuing such course his widow is not pensionable under the general law. 158 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Negligence — Death cause. (Sarah H. Monty, widow, 10 P. D., 101.) Soldier, an epileptic and a carpenter, went upon the roof of a building without any other motive than a desire to pursue his usual avocation, was seized by an epileptic fit, fell to the ground, and was killed by the fall. He was well aware of his epileptic condition, having been subject to seizures once or twice a week for some time previous. Held: If the death of a soldier is shown to be due to his own negligence, the fact that a pensioned cause was present as a factor in said death is subservient to the greater and proximate factor of the negligence of soldier. Negligence, and not epilepsy, was the proximate cause of death. (Balto., etc., R. Co. i\ James, 95 U. S., 439; La. Mut. Ins. Co. r. Tweed, 7 Wall., 52; Mil. Rwy. Co. V. Kellogg, 94 U. S., 474; Margaret Moran, 9 P. D., 492.) DEAFNESS. See Rate and Rating: Nos. 5, 8 (9 P. D., 320; 12 P. D., 294: 15 P. D., 207). DEATH. See Legitimacy: No. 5 (12 P. D., 102). See Line of Duty: Nos. 14, 19 (14 P. D.. 213; 15 P. D., 315). See Marriage: No. 2 (1) (13 P. D., 333). DEATH OF CLAIMANT. See Attorneys : No. 4 (10 P. D., 191 ; 13 P. !>., 413; 14 P. 1)., 83). DEATH OF CLIENT. See Attorneys : No. 4 (10 P. D., 191 ; 13 P. D., 413; 14 P. D., 83). DEATH FROM DRINKING UNBOILED WATER. See Line of Duty : No. 19 (15 P. D., 315). DEATH IN SERVICE. See Discharge: No. 2 (9 P. D., 311). DEATH CAUSE. Keferences. See Contributory^ Negligence: No. 1 (9 P. D.. 12: 10 P. D., 101). See Evidence: No. 12 (11 P. D., 301). See Line of Duty: Nos. 2, 9, 19 (9 P. D., 400; 11 P. D., 103; 15 P. D., 315). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 1, 10, 15, 21 (12 P. D., 425; 13 P. D., 105, 112; 11 P. D., 480). Index. 1. Accident. 2. Combination of causes. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 159 3. Liue of duty. 4. Evidence — Lay testimony. ."». Pathological seciiience. <;. Predisposing cause. 7. Disease of heart — Rheumatism. 8. Gangrene — Ulcerations. 0. Insanity. 10. Murder, 11. Tuberculosis, 12. Catarrh and general paralysis of the insane. 13. Malaria. 14. Poison. 15. Typhoid fever. 1. Accident. Death cause. (Margaret Moran, widow, 9 P. D., 492.) Soldier, who was suffering from varicose veins of left leg, of service origin, for which he was pensioned third-grade rate, was thrown from a wagon in which he was riding, striking on the back part of his head, resulting in his death two days later. Held: That soldier's varicose veins w^ere not the immediate or proximate cause of the injury which resulted in his death, and that his death had no relation, immediate or proximate, with his pensioned cause or his arniy service. 2. Combination of Causes. Death cause. (Napoleon B. Trask, 9 P. D., 113.) The rule laid down in decision in the case of Mary A. Cox (B P. D., 313), that " Avhere the evidence, lay and medical, goes to show that the cause for which pension was granted to soldier was complicated with a disease which was the immediate cause of his death, the Department will sustain the widow's claim," has not been amended, qualified, recalled, or annulled, and the same is reaffirmed. Death cause. (Angeline Emmons, widow, 9 P. D., 129.) Soldier was pensioned for disease of heart and died of abscess of bowels, as show^i by the records of death of the city of Lowell, Mass., and claimant's declaration filed about a week after sol- dier's death. The affidavit of one physician stating that disease of bowels would not have terminated fatally had it not been for the disease of heart amounts to no more than mere conjecture, and is not accepted as showing that death resulted from the pensioned cause. Death cause — C omhination of causes. (Sarah J. Smith, widow, 9 P. D., 266.) The sailor was pensioned for disease of heart. The attending 160 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. physician certified that death was caused by " pneumonia, ex- haustion, and purulent infihration,'' after an iUness of three months' duration. The widow's claim was rejected on the ground that the alleged cause of death was not due to the dis- ability for Avhich the sailor Avas pensioned. Held: That inasmuch as the principal desideratum in a case of lobar pneumonia is the maintenance of the proper action of the heart, to which the treatment is mainly directed; and in view of the fact that the sailor was pensioned for disease of that most important viscus, and that the evidence in the case shows that said disease, as w^ell as pneumonia, was an important factor in the death cause, the question as to the relation of the acute disease of lungs to the preexisting chronic disease of heart is one of com- plication, not of pathology, the claim is reopened and submitted for read judication and allowance. Death cause. (Nanna J. Smith, widow, 9 P. D., 359.) The word " complicated," as used in the case of Napoleon B. Trask (9 P. D., 113), means involved, interwoven, or connected with, and to entitle a widow to a pension under section 4702, Revised Statutes, she is required to show that the disease, wound, or injury of soldier of service origin, in line of duty, had some probable connection with or relation to death cause, and Avas a contributing and presumptive predominating factor in produc- ing death. Death cause — Misuse of a dangerous drug — Negligence. (Karolin Ullm&n, widow, 15 P. D., 303.) Death from the accidental misuse of a dangerous drug pre- scribed for a disease or injury of service origin will not confer title on the widow of the deceased, unless it be clearly shown that said disease or injury, independent of the mere misuse of the drug, was a direct contributing factor in the death cause, or that death was inevitable and was merely hastened by the misuse of the drug. Death cause — Chronic diarrhea — Chyluria parasitica. (Jennie L. eJackson, widow, 15 P. D., 354.) The soldier was pensioned in part for chronic diarrhea, of service origin. His death was ascribed to chyluria parasitica alone. As this disease of itself does not seriously threaten life, and as the testimony clearly indicates that the principal disa- bility during the last illness was due to chronic diarrhea, it is held that the soldier's death should be accepted as having resulted from chronic diarrhea, complicated with chyluria parasitica, and it is so ordered. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 161 3. Line of Duty. Death cause — Poisoniiig. (Laura Hall, now Gregg, widow, 9 P. D., 439.) Soldier's death from an overdose of opium, which he was in the habit of taking as a remedy for diarrhea contracted in the service, but w^iich w^as probably accidental and not intentional, could not be considered to have been in any way a result of the disease or otherwise connected with his military service. 4. Evidence — Lay Testimony. Death caxise — Evidence — Lay testimony. (Maria Harms, widow, 10 P. D., 453.) Lay testimony, the only evidence adduced in the case at bar relative to the alleged origin and continuance of disease of kid- neys, is utterly inadequate to show the existence at any time of any morbid condition of said organs, especially when a chemical analysis and microscopical examination of the soldier's urine made but two months prior to his death showed conclusively that he had no organic disease of kidneys. 6. Pathological Sequence. Death cause — Pathological sequence. (Julia A. E. Watkins, widow,"lOP. D., 202.) The evidence shows the fatal disease of the heart to have arisen either from diarrhea, malarial poisoning (pensioned causes), or rheumatism. All of said diseases may have been an important factor in inducing the fatal disease. The special examination shows rheumatism to have been of service origin. The medical referee holds that fatal disease resulted from rheumatism. Held: 1. Death was the result of diseases contracted in the service and in line of duty. 2. The opinions of the medical referee are not binding upon the Secretary, but are expert evidence, and will be treated as such by the Department. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Discharge — Act June 27^ 1890. (Matilda C. Tunison, widow, 11 P. D., 440.) The deceased officer was formerly a pensioner at total of rank as major ($25 per month) on account of " fracture of right elbow." His death on February 23, 1898, according to the return thereof made by the attending physician, was due to " amyo- trophic lateral sclerosis and acute pneumonitis." ^ Pneumonitis (pneumonia) being an acute disease — due to a specific germ — could not have been a result of his military serv- 13070— 0( 162 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ice; and his medical attendant's testimony to the effect that the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was a pathologic sequence of the fracture of right elbow, not being in harmony with the holding of recognized medical authorities, to the effect that the etiology of such disease is as yet unknown, the arbitrary and unsupported professional opinion or theory of this affiant can not be permitted to control the judgment of the Department in this case, which is: That the appellant has no title to a pension under the general law as the case now stands. The decedent's discharge from Company G, Twentieth Illinois Infantry, according to the decision of the War Department, which has sole jurisdiction in such matters, not having been an honorable discharge, his relict, the appellant, has no title to a pension under the provisions of section 3, act of June 27, 1890. Pathological sequence — Cerebral hemorrhage — Death cause — Evi- dence. (Maria Brantigam, widow, 11 P. D., 388.) Death of the soldier (who was over 50 years of age) from cerebral hemorrhage can not be accepted as due to injury to left testicle and varicose veins of right leg and resulting amputation of same above the knee, for which he was pensioned. Senile degeneration of the arteries is universally admitted as the most potent cause of said fatal disease, and this is shown to have ex- isted in this case, so that the burden of proof rests on those advancing a contrary opinion. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Meningitis. (Rebecca C. Morgan, widow, 11 P. D., 220.) The late officer was pensioned under the general law on account of a gunshot wound which destroyed the right eye and fractured the bones of the orbit. His death is shown to have been due to disease of the brain or meningitis. Held: That in the absence of any other more probable cause for infection than the continued disease in the orbit, the fatal disease was caused primarily by the gunshot wound. Action reversed. Death cause — Surgical operation — Sequence. (Elisabet Kaufman, widow, 11 P. D., 106.) The soldier's death is shown to have resulted from disease of kidneys, caused by ether anaesthesia, induced for the purpose of operating on a diseased right testicle, for which not pensioned, and for the radical cure of a right inguinal hernia and hydrooele, for which pensioned. H eld :.T\i2it inasmuch as the pensioned disabilities were in- cluded in the operation leading tQ the soldier's death, the widow is entitled to pension. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 163 Death cause — Comhined causes. (Mary E. Dolan, widow; minor of Harla Dolan, 11 P. D., 62.) Soldier's death from quick consumption, following an attack of pneumonia, can not be accepted as due to chronic diarrhea of service origin, said diarrhea not being an important control- ling factor in nor so complicated with said death cause that its influence can not be separated therefrom. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Apoplexy. (Emily O. Dil- worth, widow, 11 P. D., 459.) The soldier's death at the age of 72 years of cerebral hemor- rhage can not be properly regarded as due to the gunshot wound through the neck incurred thirty-six years prior thereto, and for which he was pensioned. '■ 6. Predisposing Cause. Death cause — Predisposing cause — Construction. (Nancy A. Stives, widow, 10 P. D., 90.) 1. Where the evidence^ lay and medical, goes to show that the cause for which pension was granted to the soldier was compli- cated with a disease which was the immediate cause of his death, the Department w^ll sustain the widow's claim. 2. The pension laws should be construed in the liberal and generous spirit which prompted their enactment, and where doubts can not be resolved by the evidence, presumption should incline toward the claimant. Death cause — Predisposing cause — Epilepsy. (Laura E. Carrier, widow, 14 P. D., 300.) The evidence shows, in soldier's temperament and constitu- tional tendencies, a predisposition to epilepsy which developed in the .service as the result of an attack of otitis media (suppura- tive) contracted in line of duty. The predisposition is not a bar to pension; and the widow is entitled under the general law, it being admitted that soldier's death cause was epilepsy. Mere aggravation in service of a preexisting disease is not pen- sionable; but where a disease develops in service, starting with some injury or ailment incident to line of duty as the approxi- mate efficient cause thereof, albeit there is a preexisting tendency, a natural predisposition, to the disease thus developing, said predisposition does not operate as a bar to pension if claimant is otherwise entitled. 7. Disease of Heart — Rheumatism. Death cause — Disease of heart — Evidence — Rheumatism. (Mary D. Ramsey, widow, 12 P. D., 89.) A physician testified that he had a clear recollection of treat- 164 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ing appellant for rheumatism when at home on a furlough in 1863. One neighbor testified it was his understanding, from what the family said when soldier was home on furlough, that he had camp dysentery for one thing, and rheumatism for an- other. Another neighbor testified that in 186B, when home on furlough, soldier complained of rheumatism and walked lame, and another swears that while in the service and after discharge he frequently heard soldier complain of rheumatism in his legs and body, and noticed at one time in 1863 that he was quite lame, and after discharge he was still apparently suffering and disabled on account of rheumatism. It is held that soldier's death from disease of heart can be ac- cepted as due to rheumatism contracted in the service and line of duty. 8. Gangrene — Ulcerations. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Gangrene — Ulcerations. (Emily Juno, widow, 12 P. D., 354.) The soldier was pensioned for disease of the left leg, which was characterized by swelling, eczematous eruptions, and, at times, ulceration. He died from gangrene of this leg, compli- cated by disease of kidneys. It is held that the pensioned disability can not be ignored as a predisposing cause of the fatal gangrene of the left leg. What- ever may have been the exciting cause, the fact remains that this chronically diseased leg became gangrenous and caused the sol- dier's death. 9. Insanity. Death cause — Insanity — Evidence. (Elizabeth Penman, now Ful- mer, as widow, 12 P. D., 459.) Claimant's husband's death by suicide, by reason of his in- sanity first appearing after his enlistment, is deemed to have been contracted in the line of duty, no other cause for his mental derangement appearing from the evidence. 10. Murder. Death cause — Murder — Act June 27 .^ 1890. (Susan Smith, widow, 12P. D., 180.) Soldier's death was caused by claimant's voluntary, unlawful, and felonious act, for which she w^as indicted, tried, and con- victed of murder, and was sentenced therefor to imprisonment for life, but w^as pardoned after serving twelve years. She is not, therefore, entitled to pension under the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, on account of the death of her husband caused by her own wrongful and unlawful act. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 165 11. Tuberculosis. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Bacteriology — Tuberculosis, (Susan Codner, widow, 12 P. D., 342.) The deceased soldier was pensioned at the rate of $12 per month for " chronic diarrhea and resulting disease of rectum." He died November 12, 1897, of pulmonary tuberculosis, which, his widow^ contends, was an indirect result. of the said diseased condition of his alimentary canal. Held: 1. That inasmuch as the evidence in favor of the bac- terial origin of tuberculosis, whether local or general, is now regarded as conclusive, it is, necessarily, a primary disease, and it is, therefore, never a pathologic sequel of any other disease, though certain constitutional peculiarities, and some local con- ditions, especially of the bronchii, are considered by medical authorities to be favorable to the invasion, growth, and pro- liferation of the tubercle bacillus. 2. That the evidence in the case does not establish the exist- ence at any time of tuberculosis of the bow^els, though it is not improbable that such conditions did exist during the last few years of the soldier's life as secondary to the phthisis pulmonalis, as such a sequel is not at all unusual. 3. That the said cause of the soldier's death not having been incident in any way to his military service his widow has no title to a pension under the general law. 12. Catarrh and General Paralysis of the Insane. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Catarrh and general paraly- sis of the insane. (Hannah L. Hawke, widow, 13 P. D., 372.) The cause assigned for the soldier's death on January 14, 1900, w^as " cerebral softening." Sometime prior to his death a claim for increase, signed by mark, was filed in his behalf in which it w^as alleged that he w^as suffering from " progressive softening of the brain," due to the nasopharyngeal catarrh and resulting deafness, for which he was pensioned. At the medical examina- tion held thereunder, June 12, 1899, it developed that he was suffering from the condition known as " general paralysis of the insane," also termed " paralytic dementia," " paretic dementia,'' " general paresis," " progressive paralysis of the insane." No deafness was found to exist; neither was there any disease of the auditory apparatus. His widow filed a claim for pension under the general law — based on the alleged ground that his death from disease of brain was due to his military service, by reason of such death cause being a result of said pensioned disabilities. 166 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Both of these claims Avere rejected, but in neither instance was the action taken error. Extensive suppurative conditions of the nose and frontal si- nuses, or of the middle ears and mastoid cells, especially the lat- ter, may and frequently do cause abscess of the brain, the symp- toms, course, pathology, and termination of which are sufficiently distinct, as are also its etiologic factors, from those of paretic dementia to make a differential diagnosis between such cerebral lesions comparatively easy. The clinical picture presented was one of paretic dementia and not of brain abscess. No deafness existed, and the disease of brain not being a result of catarrh he was not entitled to an increase in rate; and the cause of his death not having been incident to his military service in any manner whatever, his widow has no title to a pension under the general law. 13. Malaria. Death cmtse — Incurrence — Continuance — Malaria. (Margaret Christy, widow, 13 P. D., 313.) The appellant is pensioned under the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890, pursuant to a claim filed thereunder July 10, 1890. But it was not until December 15, 1897, that she filed a claim under the general law from the rejection of which, on Oc- tober 12, 1900, her appeal in the premises was taken. It is fairly well established that the soldier contracted malarial fever in the service, and was treated therefor by the regimental surgeon in the summer of 1864, but not in hospital. It is also reasonably well established that his death, on August 24, 1871, was due to malarial fever, although, in the judgment of the De- partment, there were other factors which were at least contribut- ing or complicating causes of his death; but such possible or probable factors in the causation of his demise are eliminated from further consideration, as the Bureau appears to be satisfied that death was due to malaria. It is contended that the malaria of service origin was the cause of the soldier's death, but inasmuch as the evidence and the facts in the case fail to show the existence of chronic malaria (malaria cachexia, chronic paludism) during the time intervening between the date of his discharge and the date of his death, such con- tention is untenable. As a matter of fact it is shown that no such condition existed. It is just as true that all cases of malarial fever do not become chronic as it is that one attack of such disease does not render the person attacked immune from a subsequent attack ; and when it is considered that the so-called " mosquito theory " as to the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 167 propagation of malaria is accepted as a demonstrated fact, a person who has not previously had the disease is as liable to be inoculated therewith as is one who had suffered from a prior infection. 14. Poison. Death cause — Poison — Pathological sequence — Evidence. (Fanny G. Pomeroy, widow, 18 P. D., 342.) The soldier's death, in 1899, from a poisonous dose of chloral, administered by himself, was not incident in any way to his military service ; consequently his widow has no title to a pen- sion under the general law. He was in the habit of taking said drug for the relief of insomnia induced by disease of nervous system, for which he had been pensioned under the act of June 27, 1890, but not under the general law. The appellant contends that the insomnia was really caused by pain due to hemorrhoids, for which he had formerly been pensioned under the general law, and that his death was, therefore, indirectly due to his military service. It is immaterial, however, as to what the actual cause of the insomnia may have been, or whether the over- dose of chloral was taken by mistake or with suicidal intent, as he was not insane as a result of his military service, but was sound in mind if not in body. Citing mother of John G, Stack (2 P. D., 153) ; Ellen Flynn, widow (8 P. D., 54) ; Jessie M. Whal- lan, widow (8 P. D., 131). 15. Typhoid Fever. Death cause — Typhoid fever — Origin. (Carrie B. Whiteleather, mother, 15 P. D., 58.) The soldier suffered from two distinct attacks of typhoid fever, the first beginning in August, 1898, while he was in the military service, and the last (which proved fatal) beginning in June, 1900, about twenty months after his discharge. It is held that the fatal attack of typhoid fever was due to a new infection from without and not to self-infection from bacilli possibly remain- ing from the former attack. DECREE. See Decree of Nullity : Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (10 P. D., 238, 284; 11 P. D., 271 ; 13 P. D., 460 ; 14 P. D., 290 ; 15 P. D., 227, 286). See Divorce: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 (10 P. D., 1, 311, 348; 11 P. D. 226, 406, 499 ; 12 P. D., 303, 445 ; 13 P. D., 68, 208, 236 ; 14 P. D., 99, 173, 279, 438, 535 ; 15 P. D., 128, 174, 278, 389, 553). See Division of Pension : No. 15 (14 P. D., 146). See Marriage : No. 2(d) (14 P. D., 265 ; 15 P. D., 103) ; No. 4 (10 P. D,. 409). 168 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. DECREE NISI. See Divorce: No. 6 (12 P. D., 445; 14 P. D., 438). DECREE "A MENSl ET THORO." See Divorce: No. (> (15 P. D. 128). DECREE OF NULLITY. References. See Dependent Widow : No. 1 (15 P. D., 329). See Marriage: No. 15 (15 P. D., 503). Index. 1. Effective only from its date. 2, When decree of, void. .3. Essentials of a valid decree. 4. Where the Government is not bound. 5. Where decree of, held valid. 6. Where decree held retroactive. 7. Where court has no jurisdiction. 8. Faulty complaint invalidates decree. 1. Eifective Only from Its Date. Marriage and divorce — Decree of nidlity. (Sally A. Fuller, al- leged widow, 10 P. D., 238.) Claimant, at the time she married the soldier, had a former husband living, from whom she had not been divorced. Subse- quent to the death of her second husband, the soldier, she pro- cured a decree in the supreme court of New York annulling said first marriage on the ground that claimant had not attained the age of legal consent at the time said marriage was consummated. Held: That under the laws of New York, and by the terms of said decree, such decree became effective only from the date thereof; and it appearing by the evidence that claimant and her first husband cohabited as husband and wife after she had arrived at the legal age of consent, she was his legal wife at the time she married the soldier and remained such up to the date of the decree of nullity before mentioned, and therefore was never the legal wife of the soldier, and is not his lawful widow. 2. When Decree of, Void. Marriage and divorce — Decree of nullity. (Mary J. Vaughn, as widow, 10 P. D., 284.) Claimant was pensioned up to January 4, 1870, when she was remarried to one Patton, and the pension was then continued to the minor children until they became 16 years of age. In 1890 she applied to be restored to the rolls, claiming that her mar- riage to Patton w^as void because at the time he had a former wife living from whom he had not been divorced, and to sustain said PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 169 allegation filed a decree of a court, in an ex parte proceeding, nullifying said marriage. Held: That as the Government was not a party to said nullity proceedings, and as it is shown that said decree was procured by fraud, it is not bound by said decree; and as the other evidence filed to show the invalidity of said marriage is insufficient to show that Patton was previously married, claimant's marriage to him must be held to be valid. 3. Essentials of a Valid Decree. Marriage — Divorce — Jurisdiction — Decree of validity, (Mary J. Yogler, widow, 11 P. D., 271.) The appellant was married to the deceased soldier in Hamilton County, Ind., in 1880, and lived with him as his wife until his death in 1896. She was previously married in 1869 to one Henry Curtner in Ohio. In 1898 she obtained a decree in the circuit court of Hamilton County, Ind., annulling and vacating her marriage to Curtner on the ground of his insanity, and declaring her marriage to the soldier valid, legal, and binding under the laws of Indiana. Held: That said court having had complete jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, its judgment and decree declaring said marriage to the soldier legal and valid under the laws of Indiana is binding and conclusive, and establishes the legal status of the appellant in that State as the lawful wife of the soldier, and she should be accepted as his widow for pensionable purposes in accordance with the provisions of the second section of the act of August 7, 1882. 4. Where the Government is not Bound. Marriage and divorce — Decree — Nullity — Fraud. (Mary Gembe, alleged widow, 13 P. D., 460.) Claimant married Soldier in 1859 and lived with him as his wife until his enlistment in 1863, but never lived with him there- after. She filed a suit for divorce from soldier in 1865, but the same was never further prosecuted. In October, 1866, che sued out a warrant against one Penebacker, charging him with bas- tardy and being the father of her male child, born May 27, 1866. On February 7, 1868, soldier was granted a divorce from claim- ant on the proved allegations of adultery, personal service being had on claimant, as shown by the record, and the issue being fully tried. Soldier died July 20, 1873, leaving a second w^ife, who died in October, 1877, and one child, Lottie, under 16 years of age. Claimant filed a claim for pension under the general law as widow of soldier in June, 1886, which was rejected in 170 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. April, 1894. In December, 1895, and May, 1890, John A., sol- dier's son by claimant, and Lottie, his daughter l)y his second wife, filed their declaration for pension under the general law, which was allowed June 17, 1897. On August 26, 1899, the de- cree of divorce theretofore granted was set aside and declared null upon the ground that on the face of the papers the court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and on the further ground that fraud had been perpetrated by soldier, the libelant; the decree further stated that the purpose of the petition was to aid the petitioner in the prosecution of a pension claim against the United States Government, and further showing while the lack of jurisdictional facts did not necessarily render the decree void, yet fraud having been shown the decree was vacated. Held: That said decree of divorce having been the cause that led to the payment of pension to claimant's son and soldier's daughter, and the Government being shown, by the petitioner's allegations, to be an interested party, and not having been noti- fied of the nullity proceedings, the Department refuses to be bound by the decree of nullity. (Case of Frances Monholland, 7 P. D., 494.) Marriage and divorce — Decree of nnllity — Evidence. (Hannah A. Kumsey, widow, 14 P. D., 290.) The claimant obtained a decree of nullity out of a court of competent jurisdiction, the effect of which was to annid the sec- ond marriage ab initio and restore her to her status as the widow of the soldier ; and there is an utter absence of any fraud on the part of either party to the decree. Held: This Department has no warrant in pension claims, and in the absence of fraud against the Government to question the soundness of the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction as to a question of fact, said judgment being a part of the evi- dence in such claim. The decree of nullity in this case is ac- cepted as conclusive as to the facts and law therein recited. 6. Where Decree Held Retroactive. Decree of nullity — New York — Marriage — Limitations — Vested rights. (Lydia E. O'Horo, widow, 15 P. D., 227.) The claimant obtained a decree of nullity out of the supreme court of the State of New York, being a court of competent juris- diction, the effect of which was to annul her second marriage and restore her to her status as the widow of the soldier. Held : The limitation in the decree to the effect that the second marriage was annulled from the date of the decree does not PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. " 171 destroy the force of the decree itself which made the second mar- riage void ah initio. The limitation in such decree was evidently for the purpose of afl'ecting the vested rights of innocent third parties ; but the Government was not such a party, and said lim- itation does not operate to make the second marriage a valid one at any time nor for any period. 7. Where Court Has no Jiirisdlction. Jurisdiction — Decree of nnllity — Marriage — O Mo — Fraud — Reim- hnrsement. (Malona W. Wiley, as widow, 15 P. D., 286.) The court record in this case shows that the court of common pleas, county of Wood, State of Ohio, had no jurisdiction to grant the decree of nullity. The same record also shows that the pur- ported decree of nullity was obtained by fraud for the purpose of affecting the pensionable rights of this claimant. Held: The Department will not be bound by such a decree. (Mary Gembe, 13 P. D., 4G0; Melissa Boyd, 14 P. D., 279.) 8. Faulty Complaint Invalidates Decree. Marriage — Divorce — Wisco/isin — Jurisdiction — Nullity — Restora- tion — Residence. (Celinda Ritchie, formerly Dolan, widow, 15 P. D., 470.) In Wisconsin a decree of nullity rendered upon a complaint which fails to allege one year's residence in the State next pre- ceding the commencement of the action, or continuous residence in the State from date of marriage therein to date of commence- ment of such action, and which alleges cause and prays for divorce only, is erroneous, invalid, and void, and no effect as evidence of the invalidity of such marriage. The testimony procured on special examination in this case shows convincingly that this claimant's second husband, Ritchie, had no former wife living and undivorced at the time of his mar- riage to her, and such marriage was valid. DECLARATIONS. References. See Attorneys: No. 11 (9 P. D., 137; 11 P. D., 429, 490; 12 P. D., 221). See Commencement: No. 1 (11 P. D., 102; 1,3 P. D., .352, 398). See Dependent Parents: No. 2 (10 P. D., 78; 11 P. D., 171, 247; 15 P. D., 18, 100, 106, 194). See Desertion: No. 4 (g) (15 P. D., 8). See Division of Pension : No. G (12 P. D., 370). See Insane Person : No. 1 (10 P. D., 109). See Practice: No. 2 (9 P. D., 109; 15 P. D., 480). See Service: No. 3 (15 P. D., 23). 172 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Index. 1. Amendments to. 2. Act of June 27, 1890. 3. Act of July 4, 1864 (section 4714, Revised Statutes). 4. Execution of. 5. Sufficient averments in. f>. Filing of. 7. Sufficient. 8. Minor's declaration. 9. A successor can not amend. 1. Amendments to. Declarations binder act of June 27^ 1890. (Instructions, 9 P. D., 93.) 1. Every application for pension under the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, should state that the same is made under said act, the dates of enlistment and discharge, the name or nature of the diseases, wounds, or injuries by which the claimant is disabled, and that they are not due to vicious habits: Pi'o- vided^ however^ That the omission of any of these averments shall not invalidate the application (the intent to claim pension being • manifest and the declaration being executed in accordance with law), but such application shaH be subject to amendment by means of supplemental affidavit in the particulars wherein it is defective; said supplemental affidavit or affidavits to be read in connection with and as a part of the application itself: And provided further^ That a declaration in the terms of the act shall be sufficient. 2. Should the paper filed fail to show upon its face, with cer- tainty, that it is intended as a claim for the benefits of the act of June 27, 1890, the claimant may make it certain by means of a supplemental affidavit, which shall be read in connection with and as a part of the original application. 3. Should the medical examination disclose the existence of any disease, wound, or injury not alleged in the original or amenda- tory application, which is a factor in the applicant's inability to earn a support by manual labor, the claimant shall be called upon to state, under oath, the time, place, and circumstance, when, where, and under which such wound or injury was re- ceived or disease contracted, and whether it was in any manner caused by vicious habits. 4. Should the wound, injury, or disease not specified in the original or amendatory declaration, but discovered on medical examination, be shown to have existed at the time when the original declaration was filed, and it is found not to be due to vicious habits, it shall be taken into account, the same as if for- mally specified in the original application, in estimating the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 173 degree of the permanent mental or physical disability to which it contributes. Should it be found, however, not to have existed at the time when the original application was filed, but from a subsequent date prior to medical examination, the degrees of the disability of the applicant being below the maximum rating, pension may be increased accordingly from the date when such wound or injury was incurred or disease contracted, provided the degree of disability from all contributory causes is thereby enhanced to a supcient extent to justify a higher rating. Should it be found impossible to fix the exact date when such wound or injury was received or disease contracted, the higher rating shall commence from the date of the certificate of medical examination showing its existence. 5. Vicious habits. — A liberal and reasonable rule in regard to the proof as to " vicious habits " was laid down by the Depart- ment in the case of John Martin (7 P. D., 578), and the same is hereby affirmed: Provided, however, That where the nature of the disease, wound, or injury is such as to show that it is not due to vicious habits, the Commissioner of Pensions may, in his dis- cretion, accept the sworn statement of the applicant as sufficient. 6. Original pension having been allowed, any subsequent in- crease of pension must be based on the fact that there is increased incapacitation for earning a support by manual labor, and must be adjudicated, so far as commencement of the increased rate is concerned, under section 4698-|, Revised Statutes of the United States. 7. All former rules and decisions in conflict herewith are hereby set aside. 2. Act of June 27, 1890. Declarations — Amendments. (Minors of Levi Robins, 9 P. D., 40.) A declaration containing all of the necessary allegations for minor's pension under the act of June 27, 1890, except it fails to state that it was filed under said act, an amendatory affidavit having been filed in which it is stated that the claim was intended to be filed under said act, is a valid declaration. Declarations — Act June 27, 1890. (Judith S. Luckingbeal, widow, 9 P. D., 42.) A declaration for widow's pension under the act of June 27, 1890, alleging all the essential elements of title except the date of her husband's discharge (or duration of his service), and that his discharge was honorable, but stating that he was a pensioner, and giving the number of his pension certificate, is a good and sufficient application under said act. 174 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Declarations act June 27^ 1890 — Disability — Evidence. (George Ellis, deceased, 9 P. D., 223.) It being shown that the deceased soldier was, at the date of filing his application for jDension and up to the date of his death, incapacitated for earning a support by manual labor in a pen- sionable degree, under the provisions of section 2, act of June 27, 1890, by disabling causes not alleged by him in his application, but shown not to be due to vicious habits, his claim should be admitted under instructions from this Department of July 28, 1897 (9 P. D., 93). Declarations — Act of June 27^ 1890. (John H. Sharon, deceased, 9 P. D., 272.) As declaration is substantially in the terms of the law, and the claimant in his statement to the examining board alleged the dis- abilities he claimed for, said claim is held to be valid. Declarations — Act June ^7, 1890 — Amendments. ( Simon P. Eaves, deceased, 10 P. D., 177.) 1. In the adjudication of this claim disability from insanity was not considered, because not alleged, although shown to have existed at time of filing declaration and continuously afterwards. This action was sustained by a decision of February 5, 1897, upon the ground that it was in accordance with the rules of practice. The claimant had died before such rejection and the rendering of said decision without filing supplemental declaration. 2. In the " instructions " relative to declarations under said act, dated July 28, 1897 (9 P. D., 93), said rules of practice were abrogated and others substituted, which permit the consideration of all disabilities proved to exist, whether alleged or not, in de- termining title. The former decision is accordingly overruled, and the action of the Bureau is set aside for the purpose of hav- ing claim readjudicated in conformity Avith said " instructions." Declarations — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Amendments. (Tony Hud- son, 10 P. D., 365.) When a claimant for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, in the language of the act alleges in his declaration that he served ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the late war of the rebellion, and was honorably discharged; that he is suffering from a mental or physical dis- ability of a permanent character, not the result of his own vicious habits, which incapacitates him from the performance of manual labor in such a degree as to render him unable to earn a support, it is such compliance with all requirements of the law as must entitle the claim to consideration, notwithstanding the specific cause of disability is not named; and it is, therefore, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS, 175 hardly necessary that the widow of a deceased applicant for pen- sion under the second section of said act should file an anienda- 'tory affidavit covering the disabilities shown upon examination, unless it be to designate their duration. Declarations — Amendments — Allegations. (Felix Myers, 11 P. D., 315.) A declaration in which the formal parts indicate a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, but which contains allegations of a serv- ice not in the war of the rebellion and of disability contracted in said service and line of duty, is subject to amendment and ex- planation as to any uncertainty in the character of the claim or the claimant's intentions relative thereto. Declaration — Act June 27^ 1890 — Amendments. (Harriet Daniels, widow, MP. D., 434.) A declaration which, although failing to allege any period of service or the correct service of the soldier on whose account it is filed, nevertheless clearly shows, on its face, that it is intended to claim pension, as widow, under the act of June 27, 1890, is a valid declaration, subject to such amendment as may be neces- sary to adjudication. Act of July 4, 1864 (Section 4714, Revised Statutes). Declarations — Act June Jf^ 186^ {section Ji71Ji). (Michael Tierney, 9P.D.,7.) An unsworn application for pension filed subsequent to July 4, 1864, is fatally defective and does not authorize the commence- ment of pension subsequently allowed, on a sufficient declaration subsequently filed, to date from the filing of such defective dec- laration. Execution of. Dsclarations — Execution. (George M. Hofmann, 10 P. D., 268.) An application for pension executed on the day of the appli- cant's discharge from the service is null and void. Declarations — Execution of papers — Alabama statute. (Seaborn Williams, 10 P. D., 292.) Within the contemplation of the law, in the State of Alabama, the official act of the clerk of a probate judge therein is the offi- cial act of said judge; therefore, a declaration for pension is made before said judge if executed in the presence of his clerk only, and is legally executed within the purview of section 4714, Revised Statutes, and the act approved July 1, 1890. Declarations — Jurisdiction — Execution. (Samuel Berry, 11 P. D., 210.) The declaration purports to have been made on August 10, 176 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1888, before the deputy clerk of the circuit court of Macoml) County, Mich., but the evidence shows that the same was executed in Grand Traverse County, of said State. Held : The dechiration is invalid. 5. Sufficient Averments in. Declarations — Sufficient averments. (William H. Hagarty, 10 P. D., 359.) A declaration for pension containing the necessary averments of facts is valid although it may have been executed upon the same day of muster out, after the claimant has been discharged and is entirely severed, in fact and in law, from the service and is no longer subject to military duty or discipline. Declarations — Practice — Act June 27^ 1890 — Disloyalty. (Jane Cook, widow, 14 P. D., 426.) Under the provisions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, the averment in the declaration of the organization in which the deceased soldier served is unnecessary, and the allega- tion when made must be considered merely for the guidance and convenience of the Bureau. An incorrect allegation as to the particular service is not fatal, and when the actual service is ascertained the claim, if rejected, should be reopened and re- adjudicated. 6. Filing of. Jurisdiction — Declaration — Filing after death. (Asa H. Dilley, 11 P. D., 257.) Soldier executed his declaration and mailed it to the Commis- sioner of Pensions, but died six days prior to the date of its receipt at the Pension Bureau. Held: A pension claim is not pending until the date of the fil- ing of the declaration, for the Commissioner of Pensions attains no jurisdiction until the declaration is filed. The Commissioner of Pensions could have no jurisdiction over a dead person, and the filing of said declaration was of no force or effect. Jurisdiction — Declaration — Evidence — Filing. ( Anthony O'Gra- dy, alias John Davis, 11 P. D., 420.) 1. A declaration for pension is of no force or effect whatever until filed in the Bureau of Pensions. 2. The actual mailing of a declaration for pension, addressed to the Commissioner of Pensions, is not sufficient proof that the same was ever filed in the Bureau of Pensions ; neither does such mailing raise any presumption that said declaration had been filed in said Bureau. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. l77 Declarations — Discharge. (Minors of John Gillespie, 13 P. D., 280.) A declaration for pension executed prior to discharge, although filed subsequently, is void and of no effect as the foundation of a claim. 7. Sufficient. Declaration — Sufficiency — Amendments. (Alphonso W. Ellis, 11 P. D., 93.) A declaration in a pension claim, aside from its formal parts, is not invalid if it substantially sets forth the facts upon which the claim is based. It is siifficiently certain if it can be made certain. Because it is subject to amendment to make more defi- nite and certain, it is not, thereby, invalid. Declarations amendatory and supplementary — Sufficiency. (Nich- olas Gill, 12 P. D., 54.) Claimant in his first declaration alleged that while in the serv- ice and in line of duty he incurred " injury of right arm while on detail duty as blacksmith." Held: That his said allegation is sufficient to include any dis- ability of the right arm incurred in service and in line of duty, including rheumatism. 8. Minor's Declaration. Declaration — Act June ^7, 1890 — Minors — Commencement. (Mar- tha Apgar, widow, 14 P. D., 7.) The title of minors to pension under the act of June 27, 1890, is distinct and separate from that of the widow, although sec- ondary to the same. It is therefore held that a widow's declara- tion, when she has failed to prove title, will not be considered as the declaration of the minors, and the minor's claim will not be adjudicated until an application in his or her own right has been filed. 9. A Successor Can Not Amend. Amendments — Declarations — Practice. (Charles Johnson, de- ceased, 15 P. D., 529.) The practice does not contemplate amendments by a successor to pensionable rights with respect to cause of disability alleged in invalid claims under the general law, for the reason that the filing of an amendment serves no purpose under the practice. DEFAULT. See Attorneys : No. 9 (9 P. D., 213, 375 ; 11 P. D., 25 ; 13 P. D., 444) ; No. ]0 (14 P. D.,^273). 13070— OG— 12 178 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. DEFECTIVE VISION. See Increase: No. 3 (12 P. D., 87, 92). DELAWARE LAWS. SeeMAKRiAGE: No. 2 (g) (14 P. D., 527). See Tables of State Statutes for 14 P. D. t DEMONSTRATION. See Pathological Sequence: No. 14 (13 P. D., 307). DEPENDENT PARENTS. References. See Commencement : No. 6 (11 P. D., 18). See Fee: No. 14 (11 P. D., 514) ; No. 25 (10 P. D., 428). See Legitimacy : No. 7 (14 P. D., 474). Index. L Legality of slave marriages. 2. Election by, under what law. 3. Not entitled, where widow survives. 4. As to income, means of support, etc. 5. Must show soldier's death to be result of service. 6. Remarriage of a mother. 7. Present dependence under new law, 8. Father not entitled while mother lives. 9. Readjudication, when. 10. Adulterous cohabitation. 1. Legality of Slave Marriages. Dependent relatives — Colored persons — Emancipation — Section s i70i, Jf705, Jf707, and Jt72S, Revised Statutes, (Daniel Bird, father, 10 P. D., 104.) Soldier was born in 1843, the fruit of a slave marriage consum- mated in accordance with slave customs in Mississippi in 1833, and died January 14, 1896. His mother died in Mississippi in 1863, six years before said marriage could have been ratified under the constitution of that State. His father filed a claim June 2, 1897, for a pension under the act of June 27, 1890, as dependent father. Held: 1. That the marital relation between soldier's father and mother was null and void in law, and claimant has no legal status as the father of the soldier. 2. Neither section 4704 nor 4723, Revised Statutes, affect, in any manner, the dependent fathers' claims. 3. The emancipation proclamation did not become operative except when enforced by the armed forces of the United States, nor did it change the legal status of persons held in slavery. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. l79 2. Election by, Under What Law. Fee — Limitation — Dependent parents — Act June 27^ 1890, and sec- tion 4707 J Revised Statutes. (Kathryne A. Ratcliffe, mother, 11 P. D., 171.) 1. An applicant for a dependent parent's pension may, if he or she so elects, make and prosecute a claim under the provisions of section 4707, Revised Statutes, without regard to the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890. 2. So much of the decisions in the case of Elizabeth Darling (10 P. D., 244, 299) as denies the existence of such a right subse- quent to the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, is overruled. Dependent parenfs claims — Section 4707, Revised Statutes — Fee — r War with Spain. (Kathrina Blitch, mother, 11 P. D., 247.) 1. Where a dependent parent's claim was filed and prosecuted wholly under section 4707, Revised Statutes, and calls were made by the Bureau of Pensions for evidence of dependence at the date of the soldier son's death, and the proof furnished establishes dependence at date of soldier's death, and the provisions of sec- tion 1 of the act of June 27, 1890, have in no manner been in- voked, it is error to issue the certificate, upon the allowance of the claim, under section 4707, Revised Statutes, as amended by the first section of the act of June 27, 1890. 2. In such a case the attorney prosecuting the claim should be certified such fee as agreed upon, evidenced by properly executed duplicate fee agreements filed in the claim, not exceeding $25. Declaration — Act June 27, 1890 — Election — Amendments. (Susan L. Bean, widow, 15 P. D., 18.) In a claim for dependent parent's pension filed subsequently to December 8, 1900, the date of the decisions of the Department in the case, Kathryne A. Ratcliffe (11 P. D., 171), where, in the declaration the benefits of the first section of the act of June 27, 1890, are not specially invoked, and where is filed the claimant's election to have the claim adjudicated under the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890, such election is an amendment to said declaration ; and, as thus amended, the declaration constitutes an application for a dependent parent's pension under said act only. Declarations — Amendment — Act of June 27, 1890 — Election. (Mary A. Jackson, mother, claimant; W. W. Dudley & Co., attorneys, 15 P. D., 100.) In a claim for a dependent parent's pension that was pending in the Bureau on December 8, 1900, the date of the decision in the case of Kathryne A. Ratcliffe (11 P. D., 171), in which the claimant's right to pension under the provisions of section 4707, 180 pension' and bounty-land claims. lievised Statutes, was not then established, where in the declara- tion the benefits of section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890, are not specially invoked, and where subsequently is filed the claimant's election to have the claim adjudicated under the i:)rovisions of the act of June 27, 1890, such election is an amendment to said dec- laration, and, as thus amended, the declaration constitutes an application for a dependent parent's pension under said act only. Declaration — Amendment — Act of June 27, 1890 — Section, 1^7 0'7, Revised Statutes - — Election — Practice. (Elizabeth Robb, mother, 15 P. D., 106.) In a claim for dependent parent's pension filed since December 8, 1900, the date of decision of the Department in case of Kath- ryne A. Ratcliffe (11 P. D., 171), where in the declaration it is alleged that claimant " fully understands the difference between the general law and the act of June 27, 1890, and the fees allowed under each law, and elects to make her application under the general law, section 1707, Revised Statutes," it is not error on the part of the Bureau before calling for evidence to advise claimant of his or her rights under both laws and request him or her to elect under which law he or she desires adjudication of claim, and to adjudicate said claim accordingly. Dependent parents — Act June 27, 1890 — Section 1^707, Revised Statutes — Limitation — Election. (Nancy J. Anibal, mother, 15 P. D., 194.) In claims for dependent parents' pension that were pending in the Bureau on December 8, 1900, the date of the decision in the case of Kathryne Ratcliffe (11 P. D., 171), at which time or thereafter, and before there is filed the claimant's election to re- ceive pension under the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890 (the benefits of the act of June 27, 1890, not having been invoked in the declaration), there has been adduced evidence which tends to show that the claimant was dependent for support upon the soldier at the time of his death, the fact alone that the claimant elected to receive pension under section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890, is not sufficient reason for refusing to allow pen- sion in the claim under section 4707, Revised Statutes of the United States; the further reason for refusing to allow such pension should be assigned that said evidence is insufficient to show that the claimant was dependent for support upon the sol- dier at the time of his death. As the evidence which had been adduced in this case when the claimant's election to receive pension under section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890, was filed fails to show that the claimant was dependent for support upon the soldier at the time of his death. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 181 the action of the Bureau in refusing to readjudicate the claim and allow pension under section 4707, Revised Statutes of the United States, was, therefore, proper. Practice — Declaration. (Eliza R. Mong, mother, 10 P. D., 78.) It is held that the Bureau erred in treating a declaration which did not specify under what law it was filed as a declaration under the general law without explaining to the claimant the benefit of applying under the act of June 27, 1890, and giving her an opportunity to intelligently amend her declaration. 3. Not Entitled, Where Widow Survives. Marriage — Adulterous cohabitation. (Eliza A. Daniels, mother, lOP. D., 153.) The evidence shows that the soldier left surviving him a widow and minor children. His mother, therefore, has no pensionable status, notwithstanding the fact that the widow was denied a pension on the ground of her adulterous cohabitation. Dependent parents — Section 1^707.^ Revised Statutes^ and act of June 27, 1890. ^Amy Champlin, mother, 12 P. D., 24.) A dependent parent is not entitled to pension under either sec- tion 4707, Revised Statutes, or section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890, if the soldier on whose account pension is claimed left a widow. 4. As to Income, Means of Support, etc. Dependent relatives — Means of support — Evidence. (Hiram Col- lins, father, 12 P. D., 361.) The evidence showing that the applicant is adequately sup- ported from the proceeds of his farm and the contributions of those legally bound to support him, he is not dependent within the meaning of section 1 of the act of June 27, 1890. Dependence — Laws of Michigan — Hushand and wife. (Thomas Garner, father, 11 P. D., 297.) The appellant obtains a comfortable support from a farm on which he resides with his wife and son, the title to said farm being in the wife. Held: While section 6295, Statutes of Michigan, allows the wife to hold and convey property free from interference and joinder by her husband, yet the said statutes do not deprive the husband of the enjoyment and use of the wife's real estate, a right belonging to him under the common law. Dependent parents — Evidence — Income. (Margaret Burke, mother, 12 P. D., 129.) 182 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. A mother claimant who occupies her own house and has an income of $20 per month from rents and receives over $500 ])er year, the earnings of her husband, is not dependent within the meaning of section 4707 of the Revised Statutes. Dependent parents — Means of support. (Elizabeth Cove, mother, 12 P. D., 472.) The evidence fairly shows the claimant had adequate means of support aside from her own labor and the contributions of per- sons not legally bound for her support at the date of filing her claim, she having at that date property worth $5,000, mortgaged for $2,100, and which appears to have been fairly rentable for at least $30 a month over and above interest and taxes, besides fur- nishing her a house in which she lived and kept two boarders, sons, who paid her about $55 a month. Held^ as a general rule: That a parent should be chargeable with such productive use of his, or her property as it may reason- ably and fairly be capable of as a means of support. Dependent parents — Means of support — Evidence. (Margaret Kuhn, mother, 13 P. D., 241.) An alleged dependent mother is without present means of sup- port, if such means of support consist only of the legal and moral obligations of her husband, such obligations being conclusively shown to be productive of practically nothing toward her sup- port, and the law being powerless to make them productive ; pro- vided always, that the said husband has no property which can be made liable for such support. Dependent parents — Section Ji.707^ Revised Statutes., and act June 27, 1890. (Ellen McKenney, mother, 13 P. D., 432.) Claimant, who is the owner of ground rent leasehold interests in the city of Baltimore, Md., the market value of which is admitted to be $2,693, is not dependent w^ithin the meaning of section 4707, Revised Statutes, as amended by the first section of the act of June 27, 1890, or under any existing law^ relative to dependent parents. Dependent relatives — Slave mothers. (Harriet Gray, mother, 12 P. D., 131.) Claimant and her minor son were slaves when said son aban- doned his master and mother in 1863, and enlisted two years thereafter, never having in any manner contributed to his said mother's support. Held: That as claimant's said son, the soldier, never con- tributed to her support, and was not legally bound so to do, she was not dependent upon him for support at the date of his death, and not pensionable as a dependent mother. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 183 Dependent parents — A handonment — Contribu tions. ( William Con- nell, MP. D.,271.) Claimant, a criminal and crook, served in some prison from the time his son was 4 months old until his death; never saw or heard of him but once during that period; never contributed to his support, nor did said son, who was 21 years old when he died, ever acknowledge his obligation to, nor did he contribute to his father's support. He can not therefore be held to have been dependent on said son, whom he abandoned, for support within the meaning of the pension laws. Dependent parents — Section Jt707^ Revised Statutes — Means of sup- port — Evidence. (Cora Gee, now Stolworth, mother, 14 P. D., 267.) A mother who has a healthy husband 29 years old, w^ho earns, w^hen he works, from $1.50 to $2 per day, and a son 16 years old, whose earnings she is entitled to, is not dependent within the meaning of section 4707 of the Revised Statutes. It was not the intention of Congress to pension the mother of a soldier if she has an able-bodied husband w^ho lives w^ith her and is shown to be able to support her, although he may not be able to provide luxuries. Dependent relatives — Illinois — Hushand and wife. (Thomas J. Dolan, father, 14 P. D., 294.) By statutory enactment the State of Illinois has made the separate estate of husband and wife liable for the " expenses of the family," whether incurred by husband or wife. Reflexively this statute, while defining a creditor's rights, operates to give to a husband such an interest in his wife's estate that the extent, character, and value of her said estate become material in the determination of the dependency of a father. 5. Must Show Soldier's Death to be Result of Service. Presumption of death evidence. (Julia Boyle, mother, 9 P. D., 287.) The continued unexplained absence of the soldier for more than twenty years, though sufficient to raise the presumption of death, does not entitle his mother to pension, as it must be further shown that such soldier died of a wound or injury received or disease contracted in the United States service and in line of duty. 6. Remarriage of a Mother. Remarriage — Dependent mother — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Eliza- beth Darling, mother of Franklin Rickard, 10 P. D., 244.) The remarriage of a dependent mother prior to the act of June 27, 1890, is not a bar to pension under section 4707, as amended 184 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. by the first section of said act, provided the facts required by the first section of the act are duly established. (Mary Kille, 7 P. D., 550.) Remarriage — Dependent mother — Act June 27^ 1890. (Rebecca Burton, mother, 12 P. D., 509.) The remarriage of a dependent mother subsequent to the pas- sage of the act of June 27, 1890, and prior to the filing of her claim, under section 4707, as amended by said act, does not affect her pensionable status if she is shown to be dependent within the meaning of the law. 7. Present Dependence under New Law. Rate — Rank — Dependent- parents — Act June ^7, 1890. (Eliza- beth Darling, mother, 10 P. D., 299.) Pensions for dependent parents are rated in accordance with the provisions of section 4707 of the Revised Statutes as amended by the act of March 19, 1886, the first section of the act of June 27, 1890, only amending said section to the extent of requiring claim- ants to prove present dependence instead of dependence at the date of the son's death. 8. Father not Entitled While Mother Lives. Dependent parents — Section 1^707 of the Revised Statutes — Statu- tory construction. (David Dyer, father, 12 P. D., 401.) A dependent father has no pensionable status, under section 4707, Revised Statutes, while the mother of the soldier is living. 9. Readjndication, When. Res judicata — Limitation — Attorneys — Act June 27^ 1890 — Section 1^707., Revised Statutes — Practice. (Lorenzo L. Sawyer, father, 15 P. D., 172.) Allien pension in a claim of a dependent parent was allowed prior to December 8, 1900, the date of the decision in the case of Kathryne A. Ratcliffe (11 P. D., 171), in accordance with the law as then construed by the Department, and with the practice then in vogue, a motion to readjudicate the claim filed by an attorney not having for its purpose the securement of a benefit for the claimant, w^ill not be entertained. 10. Adulterous Cohabitation. Dependent relatives — Adtdterous cohabitation. (Isabelle Davis, formerly Henderson, mother, 15 P. D., 335.) Open and notorious adulterous cohabitation, under the pro- visions of the act of August 7, 1882, operates as a forfeiture of the pension of a soldier's widow only. It has no applicability to the claim of a dependent relative only in so far as such conduct, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 185 during the lifetime of the soldier, extinguishes the moral obliga- tion on the part of the soldier to contribute to the relative's sup- port. Distinguishing the case of P^lizabeth Van Huff (7 P. D., 474.) ANNOTATION. PRACTICE IN CLAIMS FOR DEPENDENT PARENTS. Section 4707, Revised Statutes, was enacted in 1802. In claims filed thereunder, the testimony required was as follows: First, that soldier's death was the result of a service disability ; second, his relationship to the claimant; third, the celibacy of soldier; fourth, that the soldier contributed to the claimant's support during the last two years of his life, or expressed his willingness so to do, and fifth, that claimant was dependent the year the soldier died and has been each year since, down to the year of the adjudication of the claim. In case the pension was allowed, it commenced from the date of the soldier's death. The act of March 3, 1879, called the " limitation act," changed the date of commencement of the pension to the date of filing of the decla- ration in all cases filed since June 30, 1880, except claims of insane claimants or children under 16 years of age. (The term " children under 16 years of age " was decided in the case of James F. Burkhead (14 P. D., 24) to apply only to children of the soldier on account of whose services and death pension is claimed.) The " limitation act " also changed the practice as to depend- ence by requiring only (in all claims of dependent parents filed after July 1, 1880, and down to the passage of the act of June 27, 1890) proof of dependence the year the soldier died and since filing the declaration in the claim. After the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, and until June 21, 1899, when the decision in the case of Elizabeth Darling (10 P. D., 244) was rendered, the practice was to require from de- pendent parents separate and distinct declarations either under section 4707, Revised Statutes, or under the act of June 27, 1890, and the proof required under each law was as follows: Under the general law, or section 4707, Revised Statutes, was, first, proof that soldier's death was the result of his service; second, relationship; third, soldier's celibacy; fourth, proof that soldier contributed to claimant's support or expressed his willingness so to do during the last two years of his life; fifth, the depend- ence of the claimant for support upon the soldier at the date of his death; sixth, proof of the dependence of the claimant at the date of and since filing the declaration. In claims filed under the act of June 27, 1890, the proof re- 186 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. quired was the same as above stated, except that the proof re- quired above in Nos. 4 and 5 was not necessary. The Darling case, decided June 21, 189i), again changed the practice in all dependent parents' claims filed after that date, in that they were all adjudicated under the new law, i. e., " section 4707, as amended by the act of June 27, 1890," without regard to whether the declaration was one under the old law or the new. This practice continued until the decision in the case of Kathryne Ratcliffe (11 P. D., 171) was rendered, December 8, 1900, when the practice in dependent parents' claims was again changed back to what it had been between June 27, 1890, and June 21, 1899, with this exception^ to wit : That if a declaration showed that it was filed under section 4707, Revised Statutes, or old law, the examiner's first call was to send to claimant direct an election circular explaining the difference in the proof required under each law, the old and the new, and also the difference in the amount of fee Avhich would be allowed the attorney under each law, and requesting the claimant to elect and state upon the . circular which law he or she desired the claim to be adjudicated under, and to sign the same and have it witnessed by two wit- nesses and returned to the Bureau. This election circular upon its return to the Bureau was regarded as an amendment to the original declaration. If the claimant chose the old law, then the examiner was to adjudicate the claim under section 4707, Revise of the act of June 27, 1890, said act requiring an honorable discharge from all service contracted to be performed during the war. (Citing Stephen H. Carey, P. D., 42; James Cullen, P. D., 72; Franklin S. Cowen, 7 P. D., 374, and George Vansickle, 8 P. D., 336.) 3. General Law, When Entitled. Desertion — Restoration. (Daniel McGraw, 9 P. D., 442.) This appellant was pensioned for disability incurred during his first term of service, from which he was honorably dis- charged May 24, 1862, from that date. He was subsequently drafted and served until xVpril 8, 1864, when he deserted. Held: That he is entitled to restoration of his pension, de- ducting pension for the whole^ period during which he could have been legally held to service under the draft. (John Nor- ton, 9 P. D., 382.) Desertion— Discharge. (De Witt C. Nash, 10 P. D., 141.) As claimant deserted and was never discharged from his sec- ond service during the war of the rebellion, he has no pension- able status under said act, but is pensionable under the general law as to disabilities received in his first service, from which he w^as discharged, his claim being filed subsequent to July 1, 1880. Desertion — Record. (Sarah Ann Sullivan, widow, 10 P. D., 55.) It appearing that the official record of the deceased soldier's military service is incomplete, and did not furnish sufficient data upon which to base the action rejecting this claim, said action is reversed, with directions that the same be reopened, the War Department being called upon for additional information rela- tive to the length of the term for which the deceased soldier first enlisted in Company H, Nineteenth Kentucky Volunteer In- fantry, and the claim readjudicated on its merits in accordance with the decision of this Department in the case of John Norton (9P. D., 382). Desertion-^Service — Honorable discharge. (Henry P., alias Pat- rick H., Burns, 11 P. D., 332.) The appellant first enlisted, under the name of Patrick H. Burns, for two years, in Company B, Thirty-fifth New York Volunteer Infantry, and served therein until February, 1862, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 201 when he deserted, and was never fonually discharged therefrom. He enlisted a second time on Augnst 7. 18()2, whiU^ a deserter from said organization, nnder his correct name of Kenry P. Bnrns, for three years, in Company M, Fifth New York Heavy Artillery, and served therein nntil Jnne 26, 1805, wdien he was mnstered ont and honorably discharged the service with said ^company. He was pensioned nnder the provisions of the gen- eral pension law for an injnry to head and back, incurred in July, 1864, during his second term of enlistment. On February 9, 1891. he was dropped from the rolls because of his desertion from Company B, Thirty-fifth New York Volunteer Infantry. Held: That appellant's contract of enlistment in Company B, Thirty-fifth New York Volunteer Infantry, having expired by limitation long prior to the incurrence of the injury for which he Avas })ensioned, the offense of desertion terminated with said contract of enlistment, and at the time of the incurrence of said injury he was no longer in desertion, but w^as in line of military duty under his second enlistment, and occupied a pensionable status, and the action of dropping him from the rolls because of desertion from his first service was error. (See case of John Norton, 9 P. D., 382.) Desertion — Honorahle discharge — Dropfing. (Henry P., alias Patrick H., Burns, 11 P. D., 862.) A soldier is pensionable for a disability incurred subsequent to the expiration, by limitation, of a term of enlistment from which he had deserted and was never discharged, notwithstanding the fact that the second contract of enlistment was entered into prior to the expiration of the first term of enlistment, provided said second term of enlistment be faithfully performed and com- pleted, and l)e not avoided by the United States. a) When not Entitled. Desertion — Discharge. (Samuel B. Dump, 9 P. D., 416.) During the whole period that appellant served in the One hundred and thirty-third Ohio Volunteers, in which he alleges he contracted his disability, he was a deserter from the United States Navy, and his disability was not therefore incurred in the line of duty, and he is therefore not pensionable under the gen- eral law nor under the act of June 27, 1890. (John Norton, 9 P. D., 382.) Desertion — Honorable discharge — Restoration. (Lewis Rankin, 11 P. D., 373.) It appearing from the official record of this appellant's mili- tary service, and from the other evidence in the case, that at the 202 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. date he incurred the disabilities in the service on account of which he was formerly pensioned he was in desertion from a prior term of service and was at said time absent from his proper command without leave and not in the line of dnty, he is not entitled to be restored to the pension roll under the present rul- ings and decisions of this Department. (See cases of John Nor- ton, 9 P. D., 382, and widow of John Sullivan, 10 P. D., 55.) Desertion — Service — Line of duty. (Isaac B. Goforth, alias Na- poleon B. Gordon, 12 P. D., 253.) At the time of incurring his alleged disabilities in the Seventh Kansas Infantry, claimant is shown to have been a deserter from Company E, First United States Infantry, and he Avas therefore not in line of duty. (John Norton, 1) P. D., 382; John Sullivan, 10 P. D., 55; Lewis Rankin, 11 P. D., 373.) Desertion — Discharge — Service. (Sandford P., alias Peter S., Burke, 12 P. D., 370.) It appearing from the official record of this appellant's mili- tary service, and from his own sworn statements, that the dis- abilities on account of which he was formerly pensioned had been contracted during a term of enlistment from which he had deserted, and from which he had never been discharged, he is not entitled to be restored to the pension roll, for the reason that there is no period from which pension on account thereof could properly be made to commence , under the law, and he, having violated and repudiated his said contract of enlistment, has for- feited all right to any benefits that were incident to such enlist- ment. (John Norton, 9 P. D., 382; Lewis Rankin, 11 P. D., 373.) 4. Joint Resolution of July 1, 1902. (a) As TO Title under Old and New Laws. Service — Discharge — Desertion — Joint resolution July i, W02. (Fannie Cuchfili widow, 12 P. D., 450.) The rejection of the claim for widow^'s pension under the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, upon the ground that " sol- dier was not honorably discharged from all rebellion service," being no longer tenable under the joint resolution of Congress, approved July 1, 1902, said claim is hereby remanded for reopen- ing and read judication under the provisions of said joint reso- lution, and so much of the present appeal as relates to said action of rejection is hereby dismissed. It appearing that the disabilities from which it is alleged the soldier died, and upon which the w^idow's claim under section I } ¥ PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 203 4702, Kevised Statutes, is based, were contracted by the soldier while absent from his proper command without leave, and in viohition of his first contract of enlistment, and not iii line of military duty, this appellant has no title to pension as the widow of the soldier under the provisions of said section. (See cases of John Norton, 9 P. D., 382; widow^ of John Sullivan, 10 P. D., 55; Patrick H. Burns, 11 P. D., 332 and 362, and Lewis Rankin, ibid., 373.) Desertion — Discharge— Joint resolution of July i, J 902. (William P. McMurtry, 15 P. D., 03.) Section 2 of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, is applicable in the administration of the pension laws generally, both under the Revised Statutes and under the act of June 27, 1890. Said section establishes, however, a new pensionable status, under which pension can commence only from the date of filing of a claim subsequent to the date of its enactment. Any person coming within the operation of said section shall be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from a prior service during the war of the rebellion (m the date j^re- ceding his next following legal enlistment. A disability incurred in line of duty in such former service prior to a charge of desertion from that service, or one incurred in line of duty in such following service, is pensionable, notwith- standing such desertion. (b) What is '' Bounty or Gratuity." Discharge — Desertion — Joint resolution of July 7, 1902 — Act June 27, 1890. (Bridget Whelan, widow, 14 P. D., 380.) The " bounty or gratuity " specified in the second section of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, comprises only those additional governmental benefits conferred or compensations paid, other than pay and pensions, for or on account of military service rendered or to be rendered, and does not include the considera- tion paid to a substitute soldier by his principal under their pri- vate contract whereby the former agrees to serve in the place and stead of the latter. Desertion — Discharge — Joint resolution of July 7, 1902 — Bounty. (Jonathan King, 14 P. D., 466.) The evidence satisfactorily establishes that the soldier did not receive any bounty or gratuity other than from the United States upon his enlistment in Company D, Twelfth Kentucky Infantry, and having served for six months under his last enlistment and been honorably discharged therefrom, and his entire service 204 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. thereunder having been faithful, he conies within the provisions of the joint resolution of July 1, 190*2. EtHdence — Burden of proof — Joint resolution J uly 7, liHKi — Prne- tne. (Catharine A., Avidow of Isaac P. Brown, alias Albert B. Cole, U P. I)., 375.) 1. No burden of proof rests upon the Government in an adju- dication under section 2 of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, to show^ a soldier received the bounty or gratuity referred to in that section: but the burden of proof rests ahme. throughout said adjudication, upon the claimant to show to the satisfacticm of the Commissioner of Pensions and the Secretary that said soldier did not receive such bounty or gratuity. 2. A claimant, in seeking to establish this fact, should produce all obtainable evidence tending materially to show the facts, cir- cumstances, and conditions as regards payment or receipt of such bounty or gratuity of the soldier's seccmd enlistment, and competent testimony upon this point is that of comrades, officials, or ex-officials of the Stated county, or municipality where such enlistment was made, or other persons who were in a position to have personal or record knowledge of the matter of such bounty or gratuity. 3. A claim should not be rejected until the claimant has been called upon and given a fair opportunity to furnish such testi- mony. 4. Whether the evidence in any case establishes the fact that the soldier did not receive such bounty or gratuity is a question of judgment on all such facts, circumstances, and conditions shown. Restoration — Joint resolution of July 7, 1902 — Bounty. (William Stone, alias AYilliam Semple or Sample, 15 P. D., 11 G.) 1. The amount of bounty or gratuity receivable by soldier if he had faithfully fulfilled his prior contract of enlistment, under the terms of the second section of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, is determinable by laws and ordinances. Federal, State, or local, which Avere in effect at the time of his subsequent enlist- ment. Bounty which might have been receivable under any law enacted subsequent to his reenlistment may not be considered. 2. In the adjudication of claims under the second section of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, the amount of bounty from all sources receivable on account of his first enlistment, subject to the above limitation, is to be contrasted with the amount of bounty or gratuity, other than from the United States, actually received by him on account of his last contract of service. 3. National bounty acts and orders applicable to said joint reso- lution considered. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 205 Restor of the Revised Statutes. 8. Joint Resolution of July 1, 1902— Disloyalty. hisloyalty — Section Jf.716 of the Revised Statutes and joint resolv- tion of July U 1002. (James J. AA^ule, 13 P. D., 128.) It appearing from the evidence in this case that this appel- lant rendered voluntary military service in the Confederate army during the war of the rebellion, and that he enlisted in the mili- tary service of the United States after the 1st day of January, 1865, he is excluded from the benefits of the joint resolution of Congress approved July 1, 1902, and the payment of pension to 216 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. him is expressly prohibited by the provisions of section 4716 of the Revised Statutes. 9. Joint Resolution of July 1, 1902 — Restoration. Disloyalty — Joint resolution of July 1^1902 — Section .1^7 16 ^Revised ■ Statutes — Construction of statutes — Retrospectire laws. (John Enfinger, 13 P. D., 248.)' The claimant was granted a pension under the act of Jime 27, 1890, on December 2, 1892, which he drew until March 30, 1896, when his name was dropped from the rolls on the ground of disloyalty; on July 31, 1902, he filed a claim for restoration to the rolls under said act and was granted a pension to date from the filing of said claim; appeal was filed in which it is contended that he should have been granted a pension from the date he was dropped from the rolls under the act of June 27, 1890, setting up the joint resolution approved July 1, 1902. Held: That the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, is not a granting act, but merely removes the bar to payment of money on account of pension raised by section 4716, Revised Statutes, and that upon the removal of said bar claimant had title to restoration to the rolls under the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890; there is no authority 'of law in this case for com- mencing pension from any other date than from the date of filing the declaration under the act of June 27, 1890. Disloyalty — Joint resolntion of July 1.^1902 — Section Jf7 16., Revised Statutes — Construction of statutes — Retrospective laws. (Mary W. Craig, widow, 13 P. D., 259.) The first section of the joint resolution of Congress approved July 1, 1902, considered in its relation to the second and third sections of the act of June 27, 1890, and section 4716, Revised Statutes. Held: That the first section of said joint resolution has no effect, either retrospectively or prospectively, to change, alter, or modify the conditions of pensionable title prescribed by the second and third sections of said act; it removed only the pro- hibition of payment contained in section 4716, Revised Statutes, title being still based on and determinable imder said sections. The act of June 27, 1890, provided for the date of commence- ment of pension thereunder; the joint resolution did not alter such provision in any particular, and a claimant for pension under said act, if entitled, should be paid from the date pro- vided by the act of June 27, 1890. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 217 10. Joint Resolution of July 1, 1902 — Accrued Pension. Dhloyalty — Evidence — Section Ji.7 16. (James H. Kelley, 14 P. D., 104.) The evidence fails to rebut the presumption, from tlie records of the War Department, of this soldier's voluntary aiding and abetting the rebellion. He having died prior to the passage of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, removing the bar of section 4710 as applied to the act of June 27, 1890, said joint resolution has no effect upon his claim under said act and does not remove said bar existing at the time of his death so as to entitle his widow to accrued pen- sion under said claim. Disloyalty — Joint resolution of July 1^1902 — Section 4716 ^Revised ^tututes — Accrued pension. (Rebecca Medlock, widow, 14 P. D., 422.) Where a soldier died prior to the passage of the joint reso- lution of July 1, 1902, removing bar to payment under section 4716, Revised Statutes, as applied to the act of June 27, 1890, said resolution affords no remedy to those claiming under him in all cases where his right to pension had not been admitted, said suppositive personal right to pension dying with him. But where a soldier's claim had been admitted and his right to pension, so far as section 4716, Revised Statutes, is concerned, had never been questioned in his lifetiine, his widow may not be refused payment of his accrued pension subsequent to the pas- sage of said joint resolution upon the ground that he had ren- dered voluntary service to the Confederacy, a fact discovere^l after soldier's death. 11. What Confederates Entitled. Disloyalty — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Joint Resolution of July 7, 1902. (Kerilla Hedgspeth, widow, 13 P. D., 349). The soldier served more than ninety days during the war of the rebellion and was honorably discharged; his widow is entitled to pension under said act if the other essentials of title are present. Disloyalty — Section 1^716 of the Revised Statutes — Joint resolu- tion of July 7, 1902 — Restoration. (James M. Lawrence, 13 P. D., 395.) The exception to the first section of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, wherein it is stated that the benefits of the resolu- tion shall not apply to those (soldiers) who had a prior Confed- erate service, and enlisted in the military service of the United 218 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. States after January 1, 1865, applies to all members of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth regiments U. 8. Infan- try, as well as to all other soldiers who had a Confederate service. Disloyalty — Service — Joint resolution of July i, 1902. (Hart- well B. Whittle, 15 P. D., 337.) The provisions of the first section of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, do not apply to persons who voluntarily enlisted in the Confederate army, after having been in the military service of the United States, and whose last service was in aid of the rebellion. ANNOTATION. The following are the acts and joint resolutions of the Con- gress, and rulings and orders of the Commissioner of Pensions, relative to disloyalty as affecting title to pension : Sec. 471G. No money on account of pension shall be paid to any person, or to the widow, children, or heirs of. any deceased i)erson, who in any manner voluntarily engaged in, or aided or al)etted, the late rebellion against the authority of the United States. An Act To amend an act entitled "An act amending the pension law so as to remove the disability of those who, having participated in the rebellion, have since its termination enlisted in the Army of the United States, and become disabled," approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress asseml)1ed. That the act entitled "An act amending the pension law so as to remove the disability of those who, hav- ing participated in the rebellion, have since its termination enlisted in the Army of the United States, and become disabled," approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, be and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows : " That the law prohibiting the payment of any money on account of pensions to any person, or to the widow, children, or heirs of any deceased person who, in any manner, engaged in or aided or abetted the late rebel- lion against the authority of the United States, shall not be construed to apply to such persons as afterward voluntarily enlisted in either the Xavy or Army of the United States, and who, while in such service, incurred dis- ability from a wound or injury received or disease contracted in the line of duty." Approved, August 1, 1892. Joint Resolution Construing the act approved June twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- dred and ninety, entitled "An act granting pensions to soldiers and sailors who are incapacitated for the performance of manual labor, and providing for pen- sions to widows, minor children, and dependent parents, and for other purposes." Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assemhled, That the act approved .Tune twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act granting pensions to soldiers and sailors who are incapacitated for the performance of manual lal)or, and providing for pensions to widows, minor children, and dependent parents," is construed and held to include all persons and the widows and minor children of allMeceased persons, subject to the limita- tions of said act, who served for ninety days in the military or naval serv- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 219 ice of the Ignited States during the late war of the rebellion, and who have been honorably discharged therefrom, and section forty-seven hundred and sixteen, Revised Statutes United States, is amended accordingly : Pro- vided, hoicever. That the foregoing shall not apply to those who served in the First, Second, Third, Fourth. Fifth, and Sixth regiments United States Volunteer Infantry who had a prior service in the Confederate army or navy and who enlisted in said regiments while confined as prisoners of war under a stipulation that they were not to be pensionable under the laws of the United States, nor to those who, having had such prior service, enlisted in the military or naval service of the United States after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-five. Approved, July 1. 1902. In the fifth section of the act of March 9, 1878, providing a service pension for soldiers and saik^rs of the war of 1812 and their widows, it is provided : And section forty-seven hundred and sixteen. Revised Statutes of the United States, shall not apply to the persons provided for by this act. Section 5 of the act of January 29, 1887, granting a pension to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican war, provides — That section forty-seven hundred and sixteen of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed, so far as the same relates to this act or to pensioners under this act. And section 6 of the act of July 27, 1892, granting a pension to survivors of certain Indian wars, provides — That section forty-seven hundred and sixteen of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed, so far as the same relates to this act or to pensioners under this act. The act of April 18, 1900, also provides that section 4716 of the Revised Statutes — be, and the same is hereby, repealed, so far as the same may be applicable to the claims to pension of dependent parents of soldiers, sailors, and marines who served in the Army or Navy of the United States during the war with Spain. It is manifest that the sole object and purpose of all of these statutory provisions, although expressed in different language, was the same ; namely, to relieve the various pensions and the sev- eral classes of pensioners to which they respectively relate from the prohibition contained in section 4716 of the Revised Statutes, and to enable such persons to be paid the pension to which they might be shown to be entitled under the conditions and limita- tions of the several acts to which said provisions apply, irre- spective of the bar of section 4716 of the Revised Statutes. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions, Waf^hiuf/ton, D. (7., Fehruanj 17, 1903. Chiefs of Division : Claims for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, of. members of the six ref?iments of infantry and of the one company of cavalry, known as the United States Volunteers, composed in greater part of men who had 220 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. served in the Confederate States army, and been captured and enrolled into these orj;anizations from the Union prisons, will be treated mider the first section of the joint resolution of July 1. ]1)()2, the same as the claims of others who had served in the rebel army and afterwards joined the Union forces : it is held that it is not the intent of Congress to grant pension for disabilities incurred while in arms against the Union, under any law. E. F. Ware, Commissioner. It will be observed that the first section of the joint resolution of eJnly 1, 1902, was intended to apply to those who entered the military service of the United States after a prior service in the army or navy of the Confederate States, excepting only those who enlisted in certain regiments under a stipulation that they were not to be pensionable, and those who enlisted after January 1, 1865. (See the Craig case, 13 P. D., 259 ; and the Whittle case, 15P. D., 337.) The case of James M. Lawrence, of Company I, Sixth Regiment United States Volunteer Infantry (see 13 P. I)., 395), is the only case so far decided where the soldier served in one of the six regiments referred to in the first proviso of the joint resolu- tion and whose claim was rejected on the ground that he was ex- cluded from the be^nefits of said joint resolution by one of its provisos — to wit, that he enlisted in the service of the United States after January 1, 1865. No decision, as I am aware, has ever been rendered in the case of a member of any of the six des- ignated regiments wdio enlisted prior to January 1, 1865, and whose case was rejected on the ground that he enlisted under a " stipulation that he was not to be pensionable." The only method of ascertaining whether any member of the • six regiments referred to in the first proviso of the joint resolu- tion of July 1, 1902, enlisted therein " under a stipulation that he was not to be pensionable," or that he enlisted " after Jan- uary 1, 1865," is from that member's military history on file at the War Department. If such record shows that said soldier enlisted *' under a stipulation that he w^as not to be pensionable," or if it shows date of enlistment to have been after January 1, 1865, in either case the bar of section 4716 has not been removed by the joint resolution, and the claim or claims must be rejected. Other important points as to disloyalty cases have been set- tled by the late decisions of the honorable Secretary. One of these is that the first section of the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, is retroactive. (See case of John Enfinger, 13 P. D., 248, and the Taylor case, 14 P. D., 276.) That is to say, if any sol- dier from whose record the bar of section 4716 is removed by the joint resolution was a pensioner under the act of June 27, 1890, 'PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 221 and his name before the passage of the joint resolution was dropped from the rolls on account of his disloyalty, he can, if living, have his name restored to the rolls from the date of drop- ping; or if he dies after the passage of the joint resolution his widow, or in case of her death, or in case she married the soldier after June 27, 1890, his children, under the age of 16 years when they apply, can have soldier's name restored to the rolls from the date of dropping and receive the accrued pension to date of the soldier's death. Another point is, that in any case where any such soldier died before the passage of the joint resolution, his right to pension or restoration to the rolls died with him, and there is no accrued pension for his widow or children, except where during his life- time the bar of section 4716 was never .set up against him and the fact of his former disloyalty w^as not discovered until after his death. The title of the widow of any such soldier to a widow's pension or to restoration from date of dropping, if once on the rolls, or from date of filing her original claim, in case of former rejection, is restored under the act of June 27, 1890, by the joint resolution whether the soldier died before or after the passage of the joint resolution. In case of no widow, or if she is not pensionable under act of June 27, 1890, the soldier's children, under K) 3^ears of age when they apply, have title to a pension under the act of June 27, 1890. DIFFICULTY AND TROUBLE. See Appeals : No. 4 (11 P. D., 519). See Fee: Nos. 8, 22 (10 P. D., 147; 14 P. D., 199). DISEASE OF HEAET. See Death Cause: No. 7 (12 P. D., 89). See Pathological Sequence : Nos. .5, 20 (12 P. D., 491 ; 11 P. D., 462). See Prior Soundness: No. 1 (15 P. D., 1). DISBANDMENT. See Service: No. 21 (12 P. D., 407). DISMISSED. See Appeals: No. 8 (15 P. D., 410). DISABILITY. References. See Age: No. 1 (11 P. D., 179) ; No. 2 (11 P. D.. 240). See Aid and Attendance: No. 1 (9 P. D., 307, 349, 423, 481) ; >{o. 4 (11 P. D., 503). 222 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. • See Amputation : No. 1 (9 P. D., 70; 11 P. D., 1 ; 14 P. D., 2(j4) ; No. 2 (15 P. D., 402). See Anterebellion Service: No. 1 (9 P. D.. 220). See Appeals: No. 8 (10 P. D., 250) ; No. (> (13 P. D., 170). See Attorneys : No. 8 (10 P. D., 4G0). See Death Cause: No. 1 (9 P. D., 492) ; No. 2 (9 P. D., 266) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 453) ; No. 5 (lO^P. D., 202 ; 11 P. D., 62, 106, 388) ; No. 6 (10 P. D., 90; 14 P. D., 300) ; No. 7 (12 P. D., 89) ; No. 8 (12 P. D.. 354) ; No. 11 (12 P. D., 342) ; No. 12 (13 P. D., 372) ; No. 13 (13 P. D., 313). See Declarations : No. 2 (9 P. D., 223). See Disloyalty: No. 1 (15 P. D., 76). See Helpless Minor : No. 3 (10 P. D., 22, 224, 368 ; 12 P. D., 365, 527). See Increase: Nos. 1, 3, 4, 10 (9 P. D., 54, 401; 12 P. D., 59, 87, 92; 11 P. D., 51). See Origin : Nos. 1, 2, 3 (11 P. D., 329 ; 12 P. D., 298 ; 13 P. D., 1). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 14, 20 (13 P. D., 307; 11 P. D., 307). See Practice: Nos. 1, 11, 15, 18 (9 P. D., 399; 10 P. D., 12; 11 P. D., 455; 12 P. D., 254). See Rate and Rating: Nos. 2, 3, 6, 10 (9 P. D., 370, 413; 10 P. D., 176, 256, 261). SeeRERATiNG: No. 5 (11 P. D., 299). Index. 1. Aggravation and recurrence of. 2. Evidence — Sufficiency of. 3. Act of June 27, 1890. 4. Age not ])er se a disability. 5. Cause of disability. 6. Degree of disability, act of June 27, 1890. 7. Aid and attendance. 8. Support. 9. Amputation. 10. Permanent and specific— Rating. 11. Soldier Mexican war — Disability. 1. Aggravation and Recurrence of. Disability — Origirb — Aggravation and recurrence of old disahility. (Andrew J. Fleener, 9 P. D., 133.) Certificate of disability for discharge, corroborated by oral testimony, shows that the alleged disability — bronchitis — existed prior to enlistment. It is not shown that claimant had recov- ered therefrom, and the recurrence of the same after an attack of measles in service is not such aggravation as would make the disability pensionable. 2. Evidence — Sufficiency of. Disability — Emdence, sufficiency of. (Charles Engleman, 9 P. D., 47). When the evidence presented by a claimant is sufficient to sat- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 223 isfy the iiiiiid of a candid and impartial person that a pen- sionable disability from some obscure cause* exists, although no physical signs of it can be discovered by the examining surgeons, pension should be allowed at a rate proportionate to the degree of disability proved. Disahility — Rating — Medical examinations. (Warren Thompson, 10 P. D., 276.) The degree of inability to perform manual labor is a medical question only so far as a claimant's physical and mental condi- tion is shown by medical evidence. And there is no better evi- dence as to his physical ability or inability than an accurate description of normal and abnormal conditions disclosed by a careful medical examination made by experienced practitioners. 3. Act of June 27, 1890. Disahility— Rate— Act June 27, 1890. (Francis Frank, 9 P. D., 68.) A claimant who has attained the age of 65 years shall be deemed entitled to at least the minimum rate of pension unless the evidence discloses an unusual vigor and ability for the per- formance of manual labor in one of that age. Disahility— Act of June 27, 1890. (William Featherly, 9 P. D., 106.) The claimant is by trade a stone mason. The condition of his hand being such as to prevent his working at his trade, and being too old to learn another, it is held that he has a pension- able status under the act of June 27, 1890. ReaiRrming depart- mental decision in the case of Charles Stone (8 P. D., 477). Disahility— Act June 27, 1890— Rate. (Charles C. Wheaton, 9 P. D., 156.) It was not intended by the act of June 27, 1890, to grant pen- sions for such degrees of disability as do not materially impair the ability to earn a support by manual labor; and total deaf- ness of one ear and slight in the other is not such a disability as impairs claimant's ability to earn such support. Disahility— Act June 27, 1890— Practice. (John W. Hird, 9 P. D., 263.) The evidence, the certificates of examination, and the concur- rent opinion of the medical referee show the existence of a degree of disability warranting a rate under the act of June 27, 1890. Under the present rules as to rating the action of rejection is reversed, notwithstanding that it was in accordance with the practice at the time the claim was adjudicated. OF THE VNIVERSITY 224 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 4. Age Not per se a Disability. Disability— Act June ^7, 1890— Age. (J. Louis Will, 11 P. D!, 179.) The fact that a claimant has attained the age of 65 years does not entitle him to pension, per se, under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, regardless as to what his mental or physical con- dition may be, and such was not the view expressed in the case *of Francis Frank (9 P. D., 68) ; but the evidence in this case disclosing the fact that claimant is by trade a pattern maker, and that by reason of age, disease of heart, limitation of motion in knee and shoulder, enlarged veins of leg, and stiffness and limitation and atrophy of hand he is unable to follow said occu- pation, the action rejecting his claim was error, and is reversed. (Charles Stone, 8 P. D., 477, and William Featherly, 9 P. D., 106.) 5. Cause of Disability. Disahality — Pathological sequence — Myopia. (Adolph Becker, 11 P. D., 185.) The certificate of medical examination, made under appellant's claim for increase, shows that his loss of vision in both eyes is due to intraocular changes caused by a high degree of m3^opia, which can not be accepted as due to his military service. Action affirmed. 6. Degree of Disability, Act of June 27, 1890. Disability— Act June 27, i5P^— (Arche C Winfrey, 11 P. D., 38.) The fact that the claimant was not disabled in a pensionable degree from the causes alleged is not a good ground for reject- ing his claim under the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, if it appear that he was so disabled from other causes not alleged. Disability — Rate — Act June 27., 1890 — (Edema. (Lee K. Janney, 11 P. D., 505.) Appellant's disability, resulting from disease of left foot and leg, evidenced by marked swelling of entire left lower extremity in marked contrast with its fellow, simulating elephantiasis, due to local oedema, right thigh measuring 17 inches; left, 18^ inches; right lower thigh, 15 inches; left, 16 inches; knees, 15 inches; right calf, 12, and left 17 inches; right ankle, 9 inches; left, 15; right arch of foot, 8|, and left 10 inches, existing in a degree rendering him unable to earn a support, he was entitled to a rate of $12 per month from October 26, 1899, and action is re- versed. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 225 7. Aid and Attendance. Disahility — Aid and attendance — Senility — Hemiplegia. (Gideon Ganoe, 12 P. D., 50.) The claimant is a pensioner at second-grade rating for rheu- matism and resulting disease of heart. The claim was rejected on the ground that the present helpless condition is due to senility rather than to pensioned causes. Held: That the pensioned disabilities can not be ignored as the probable causes of the cerebral hemorrhage to which the existing left hemiplegia is due. The claimant is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to Avhether senile changes were or were not the most potent cause of the cerebral hemorrhage. Action reversed. 8. Support. Disahility — Rate — Act June 27^ 1890 — Support. (Edward L. Hobart, 12 P. D., 319.) As appellant is disabled from all causes of a permanent char- acter, not due to vicious habits, in a degree rendering him unable to earn a full support by manual labor, he is entitled to a rating under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. 9. Amputation. Disahility — Specific — Amputation — Act August 4, 1886. (Henry Wheeler, 12 P. D., 477.) The question as to whether there is total disability in a limb, as mentioned in the act of August 4, 1886, is one requiring evi- dence to establish and judgment to determine, and therefore such a disability is not a permanent specific disability within the meaning of section 4698^ of the Revised Statutes, and an increased rate of pension on account of such a nonspecific disa- bility must commence from the date of the certificate of the medical examination had under a claim for increase instead of from the date of the passage of the act of August 4, 1886. 10. Permanent and Specific — Rating. Disahility — Permanent and specific — Rating. (William H. Worm- stead, 14 P. D., 182.) The evidence shows that the claimant was totally and perma- nently disabled in his left hand by a gunshot wound at the date of his medical examination, August 14, 1865, and continuously since, and he is entitled to the specific ratings provided by law. Rates — Specific diMihility — Act March ^, IdOS^Total disahility in a foot. (Cornelius F. Groner, 14 P. D., 508.) Claimant having been pensioned at the rate of $24 per month 13070—06 15 226 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. from -the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, from gunshot wound of right thigh and resulting paralysis of leg and foot, resulting in total disability such as to render incapacity to. per- form manual labor equivalent to the loss of a hand or foot, he must have been totally disabled in the leg and foot and entitled to the rate of $40 per month provided by the act of March 2, 1903. The Bureau having conceded his right to the benefits of said act, the increased rate of pension must commence from the approval of the act. 11. Soldier Mexican War— rDisability. Title ^ act of January 29^ 1887 — Disability. (Charles AV. Johannes, 9 P. D., 341.) In order to be allowed pension under the act of January 29, 1887, an officer or enlisted man is not required to show that he is subject to a disability equivalent to some cause recognized by the pension laws as sufficient reason to allow pension under those laws at the rate of $8 per month ; said officer or enlisted man may be entitled to the benefits of said act if it appear that he is sub- ject to such disability as would be recognized by those laws as sufficient reason for the allowance of pension for any rate less than $8 per month. DISCHARGE. References. See Death Cause: No. 5 (11 P. D., 440). See Desertion: No. 1 (9 P. D., 382) ; No. 2 (9 P. D., 144, 407; 10 P. D., 355; 11 P. D., 13) ; No. 3 (9 P. D., 442; 10 P. D., 55, 141; 11 P. D., 332, 362) ; No. 3(a) (9 P. D., 416; 11 P. D., 373; 12 P. D., 253, 379) ; No. 4(ji) (12 P. D., 450; 15 P. D., 63) ; No. 4(1)) (14 P. D., 380, 466) ; No. 4(c) (13 P. D., 346; 14 P. D., 552) ; No. 4 (d) (15 P. D., 215) ; No. 4 (e) (15 P. D., 94) ; No. 4 (f ) (14 P. D., 352, 502) ; No. 6 (9 P. D., 255) : No. 7 (15 P. D., 276). See Practice: No. 12 (11 P. D., 13). See Service: Nos. 1, 3, 8, 16, 20, 21, 22 (9 P. D., 18; 15 P. D., 201; 9 P. D., 162, 292; 12 P. D., 273; 12 P. D., 466; 14 P. p., 249; 12 P. D., 407; 11 P. D., 206; 13 P. D., 237). Index. 1. Dishonorable. 2. Honorable. 3. Where never discharged. 4. Discharged without honor. 5. Termination civil war, discharged regulars. 1. Dishonorable. Discharge — Service— Act of June ^'/, 1890. (Rosa Rupp, widow, 10 P. D., 14.) The soldier having been dishonorably discharged from the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 227 service in the war of the rebellion, his widow has no title to pen- sion under section 3 of the act of June 27, 1890. Discharge without honor — Dishonorable discharge. (John H. Ricketts, 14 P. D., 283). This soldier having been discharged from service under special order mustering out his organization because of its refusal to obey orders, and such discharge being held by the War Depart- ment to be a discharge without honor, he was not honorably discharged from such service, and is not pensionable under the act of June 27, 1890. 2. Honorable. Honorahle discharge — Act June ^7, 1890, (Dennis Murphy, 9 P. D., 123.) Soldier was dishonorably discharged from the Regular Army March 19, 1861, having been in arrest for more than a year prior to that date. He enlisted March 22, 1862, and served in the Fourth California Volunteers imtil March 31, 1866, when he was mustered out. It is held that he was honorably discharged within the meaning and intent of the act of June 27, 1890. Honorable discharge — Death in service — Act of June 27, 1890. (Elsie Hummel, widow, 9 P. D., 311.) When soldier has served a term of ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the late war of the rebellion and has been honorably discharged there- from, reenlists, and dies during his subsequent term of. service, his death not being the result of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation of the military or naval service, the requirements of the act of June 27, 1890, as to length of service and honorable dis- charge are fulfilled, and his widow^ is entitled to pension on compliance with the other conditions of the act. 3. Where Never Discharged. Discharge — Act June 27, 1890. (Susan Williams, widow, 10 P. D., 82.) The deceased soldier was never discharged from his military service during the war of the rebellion, but was murdered whilt in the service under his first and only enlistment at a time when absent from his command on a pass. wk Held: That his widow is not entitled to pension under the ^B provisions of section 3, act of June 27, 1890. ^K. Discharge Without Honor. ^H Sernice — Discharge — Act June 27, 1890 — Discharge without honor, H (Peter Andrews, 14 P. D., 413.) 228 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. hard labor, under sentence of a court-martial, it is held that his discharge was not honorable, but " without honor," and that he has not a pensionable status under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Dishonorahle discharge — Act of May 9^ 1900. (Alice C. Blue, widow, 15 P. D., 378.) Soldier having been dishonorably discharged from the service during the war of the rebellion, his widow has no title to pension under the act of May 9, 1900. 5. Termination Civil War, Discharged Regulars. Service — Act June ^7, 1890 — Termination of war of the rebellion — Volunteers. (Placida M. de Ortega, widow, 14 P. D., 320.) The termination of the war of the rebellion did not operate as a constructive discharge of volunteers enlisted during said war, as was the case of officers and men in the regular establislunent, and the soldier or sailor upon whose service the application is based must be shown to have been honorably discharged from the final contract of service entered into by him during the war of the rebellion. See also cases of William B. Johns (2 P. D., 393) ; Helen M. Leslie (6 P. D., 255), and Evelyn S. Tallman (ibid., 261). DISCHARGE WITHOUT HONOR. See Discharge : Nos. 1, 4 (14 P. D., 283, 413; 15 P. D., 378). DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE. See Discharge: Nos. 1, 4 (10 P. D., 14; 14 P. D., 283, 413; 15 P. D., 378). DISBARRED ATTORNEY. See Fee: No. 20 (13 P. D., 25). DISEASE OF SPINE. See Pathological Sequence : No. 16 (14 P. D., 542). DISEASE OF EYES. See Origin : No. 3 (13 P. D., 1). DISEASE OF RECTUM AND UREMIC POISONING. See Pathological Sequence: No. 8 (13 P. D., 153). DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (a) (10 P. D., 110, 118; 13 P. D., 234). DISEASE OF KIDNEYS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 22 (15 P. D„ 249). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 229 DIARRHEA. See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 14, 22 (13 P. D., 307; 15 P. D., 249). DISMISSAL. See Practice : No. 10 (13 P. D., 211, 347). See Rebating: No. 6 (15 P. D., 299). DIVORCE. References. See Decree of Nullity: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (10 P. D., 238, 284; 11 P. D., 271 ; 13 P. D., 460; 14 P. D., 290; 15 P. D., 227, 286) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Division of Pension : Nos. 4, 5, 12, 15, 20 (14 P. D., 521 ; 15 P. D., 90 ; 11 P. D., 494 ; 13 P. D., 422, 347 ; 14 P. D., 230 ; 15 P. D., 38) . See Marriage: No. 1 (14 P. D., 17, 43) ; No. 2 (d) (14 P. D., 265) ; No. 2(k) (12 P. D., 481; 15 P. D., 186) ; No. 2(1) (13 P. D., 333; 15 P. D., 229) ; No. 2(n) (11 P. D., 97) ; No. 2(o) (12 P. D., 439) ; * No. 2 (p) (12 P. D., 382) ; No. 2 (s) (11 P. D., 114) ; No. 2 (t) (15 P. D., 240; No. 2(y) (15 P. D., 211) ; No. 2(bb) (12 P. D., 340; 13 P. D., 157; 14 P. D., 365; 15 P. D., 413) ; No 2 (ee) (10 P. D., 211) ; No. 2 (gg) (12 P. D., 300) ; No. 2 (kk) (12 P. D., 514) ; No. 2(oo) (10 P. D., 15) ; No. 2(rr) (10 P. D., 227) ; No. 3(a) (9 P. D., 31; 10 P. D., 294) ; No. 3(b) (10 P. D., 297) ; No. 3(e) (10 P. D., 423; 11 P. D., 139; 12 P. D., 182, 333) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 5, 497, 506 ; 10 P. D., 220, 409 ; 12 P. D., 134, 326, 434, 505 ; 13 P. D., 90 ; 14 P. D., 21, 310) ; No. 5 (10 P. D., 258) ; No. 10 (9 P. D., 30; 10 P. D., 266; 11 P. D., 488) ; No. 13 (11 P. D., 66, 131; 14 P. D., 497) ; No. 14 (11 P. D., 73) ; No. 11 (15 P. D., 459) ; No. 2 (e) (15 P. D., 493) ; No. 2^11) (15 P. D., 540). See Reimbursement : No. 2 (13 P. D., 201). See Restoration : No. 2 (12 P. D., 510; 13 P. D., 118, 435; 14 P. D., Ill, 198, 411, 452; 15 P. D., 446). Index. 1. Nunc pro tunc decrees. 2. Presumptions. 3. Omission of statutory requirements. 4. Fraudulent divorces, impeached where. 5. Interlocutory decree not a divorce. 6. Decree " nisi " or " a mensa et thoro " not a. 7. New York law as to foreign divorces. 8. Indian divorces invalid. 9. Utah divorces valid. 10. Essentials of a valid decree of. 1. Nunc Pro Tunc Decrees. Marriage and divorce — Nunc pro tunc decree. (Isabel W. Siler, widow, 10 P. D., 1.) Claimant and soldier were married on the 29th day of May, 1881. Claimant was divorced from her former husband April 8, 1881. Soldier had been previously married, but in a proceeding 230 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. for a divorce from his former wife the records of the circuit court of Cook Couuty, 111., show that on the 28th day of May, 1881, the case was heard by the judge of said court, and a decree of divorce ordered, and a formal decree was spread upon the records; it further appears that soldier's attorney in said suit subsequently informed him that a final decree could not be entered until soldier paid the stenographer for transcribing his notes of the evidence taken in said suit and a balance due said attorney; said soldier paid said charges, whereupon said attorney presented, on July 14, 1881, to the judge of said court a decree in nearly the identical language as the decree formerly spread on the records of said court, which said judge signed, and the same was also spread on the records. It is Held: That said soldier was legally divorced from his former w^ife on the day said cause was tried and determined, and not on the date of entering said subsequent decree, and that his marriage to claimant was valid. Divorce — Decree — Record — Marriage — Evidence. (Mary E. Noble, widow, 14 P. D., 535.) Soldier filed a libel for divorce against claimant. The record shows that the case came to trial, that the court found for the libelant, and ordered that a decree to that effect be prepared. No formal record of decree appears to have been prepared or filed. Held: That soldier was legally divorced from claimant, who is therefore not his w4dow, said divorce being effective by the order of the court alone and not affected by the lack of a formal record of decree, which is merely evidence of the order of the court, hav- ing no effect of itself. 2. Presumption. Marriage and divorce — Evidence. (Anna Maria Gallich, 10 P. D., 311.) A divorce is never presumed except it be for the purpose of upholding a subsequent marriage, such marriage having been proved to be an established fact. The mere fact that one lived with another man or woman in a marital state, or that there was a subsequent ceremonial marriage, are not sufficient to warrant a presumption of divorce. There must be other substantial facts in connection therewith before such a presumption can be successfully invoked. Marriage and divorce — Evidence. (Mary C. Orr, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 348.) 1. Where a claimant for pension, in order to sustain the legal- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 281 ity of her marriage to the soldier, alleges that said soldier pro- cured a divorce from a former wife (who also claims pension as his widow) in a certain county and State, she must prove such divorce by the records of the proper court in said county. 2. There could be no stronger presumption in favor of a second ceremonial marriage than there would be in favor of the validity and continuance of the first ceremonial marriage. Marriage — Illinois — Missouri- — Evidence — Presnmftion. (Leticia C. A. Spencer, widow; 13 P. D., 68.) In either Illinois or Missouri, where a marriage duly and for- mally entered into is shown, a divorce from a prior marriage will, in general, be presumed in order to sustain such remarriage. Marriage — Iowa — Presunription of di vorce — Divorce — Evidence. (Mary E. Lyon, widow, 15 P. D., 174.) Where parties to a first marriage separate and both remarry, or conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the continu- ance of the marriage relation, the dissolution of said marriage by divorce may be presumed, in Iowa, in order to validate the subsequent remarriage of either party, if the equities of the case demand it and the circumstances of the case permit the indul- gence of said presumption. (Blanchard v, Lambert, 48 Iowa, 228; Leach v. Hall, 95 Iowa, 611; Parsons v. Grand Lodge, 108 Iowa, 6, and Tuttle r. Raish, 116 Iowa, 331, distinguished from Ellis V. Ellis, 58 Iowa, 720; Oilman v. Sheets, 78 Iowa, 499, and Barnes v. Barnes, 90 Iowa, 282.) Omission of Statutory Requirements. Jurisdiction — Notice — Decree — Divorce. (Emma M. Cooper, widow, 10 P. D., 434.) The widow's claim was rejected on the ground that her hus- band obtained a divorce from her in the State of Colorado while she resided in Massachusetts. The transcript of the record fails to show affirmatively that a copy of the summons in the divorce proceedings was mailed to her, although her post-office address was known. This statutory requirement being omitted, it is fatal to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction — Divorce — Decree — Record. (Annie M. Shipp, widow, 11 P. D., 226.) The widow's claim was rejected on the ground that her hus- band obtained a divorce from her in the State of Indiana while she resided in Arizona. The transcript of the record fails to show affirmatively that a copy of the summons in the divorce proceedings was mailed to her, although her post-office address was known. This statutory requirement being omitted, it is fatal to the jurisdiction of the court. 232 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Jurisdiction — Decree — Evidence — Divorce. ( Elizabeth William- son, widow, 11 P. D., 406.) The decree of divorce obtained by the soldier in the State of Arkansas in 1879 against the claimant, who was in the State of Illinois, is void for the reason that the statutory requirement that the warning order should be published was not complied with. 4. Fraudulent Divorces, Impeached Where. Jurisdiction — Divorce — Practice — Division of pension. (Chris- tine Cooper V. Joel S. Cooper, 13 P. D., 208.) Claimant should test the validity of her husband's alleged fraudulent divorce in the court where the divorce was procured, or impeach its validit}^ by proper proceedings in another court. Public policy and administrative duty require that questions of this nature should be left to the courts and that parties ques- tioning the validity of a decree or judgment of court of gen- eral jurisdiction over the subject-matter, collaterally, in a pro- ceeding of this nature, shoidd be relegated to the courts for their remedy. Marriage — Divorce — Fraud — Practice — Division of pension — A ct of March 3, 1899. (Mary J. Powell /'. William A. Powell, 13 P. D., 236.) Pensioner procured a decree of divorce in the State of Indiana, the wife being a resident of the State of Ohio. Xo notice of the divorce proceedings was served upon the wife, and she did not appear. Claimant should test the validity of her husband's alleged fraudulent divorce in the court where the divorce was procured, or impeach its validity by proi^er proceedings in another court. Public policy and administrative duty require that questions of this nature shoukl be left to the courts and that parties ques- tioning the validity of a decree or judgment of court of general jurisdiction over the subject-matter, collaterally, in a proceeding of this nature, should be relegated to the courts for their remedy. 5. Interlocutory Decree Not a Divorqe. Decree — Default — Divorce — Interlocutory decree. (Adaline Long, alleged widow, 11 P. D., 499.) Under the civil practice of Missouri an interlocutory decree of default in a divorce case, no trial being had nor decree entered upon the merits of the case, is not a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony existing between a plaintiff and defendant, not- withstanding such decree states that said bonds are dissolved, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 233 " and that unless the defendant appear at the next regular term " and " show good cause to the contrary judgment will be finally rendered. * * * 55 Marriage — Divorce — Decree — Indiana — Judgment — Record — Find- ing. (Annie Davis, widow, 15 P. D., 278.) 1. The marriage relation is dissolved on rendition of a decree or judgment for divorce, which is the act of the court, and not upon entry thereof or upon issue of a certified copy of the decree, which is merely the ministerial act of the clerk. 2. A record to the effect that on trial the court finds that the libelant is entitled to a decree of divorce is merely a record of the verdict on the issue of fact presented, and the bonds of matri- mony are not dissolved until there is judgment on the verdict — i. e., the rendition of a decree. 6. Decree " Nisi " or "A Mensa et Thoro " not a. Marriage and divorce — Decree nisi — Laws of Massachusetts, (Hannah J. Bills, widow, 12 P. D., 445.) Appellant was, prior to her ceremonial marriage to the soldier, married to one Erasmus Holmes, and on her libel was granted a decree of divorce from bed and board against him in the State of Massachusetts. It is not shown that such decree was ever made absolute, or that said marriage had been dissolved. Therefore her marriage to the soldier while said Holmes was living was void and she is not his widow. Marriage — Divorce — Restoration under act of March 3\ 1901 — Evi- dence — Decree nisi — Estoppel. (Ruth A. Pitkin, as widow of Carlos R. Bugbee, 14 P. D., 438.) 1. A divorce nisi in Massachusetts does not dissolve the mar- riage relation. Until the decree is made absolute, coverture continues. 2. Absolute divorce, after the expiration of six months from rendition of decree nisi, is not in the nature of a decree nunc pro tunc; coverture for any purpose, except cohabitation, is not ter- minated at any time prior to decree absolute. 3. A claim for restoration under the act of March 3, 1901, executed during the term of a decree nisi, is invalid. 4. Presumption of death attaches in Massachusetts as at com- mon law. 5. Where an allegation of death of a spouse, insusceptible of proof by primary evidence, is followed by the filing of a libel for divorce, based upon desertion of said spouse, libelant is not after- wards estopped from invoking presumption of death; but the allegation in the libel may be considered as evidence upon the question of rebuttal of presumption. 234 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Restoration — Act of March 3, 190 J — Separation — Divorce. (Sarah E. Smith, now Herriman, ^Yidow, 15 P. D., 128.) Claimant obtained a decree of separation from bed and board from her second husband. Said second marriage was not dis- solved by said decree, and claimant is still the wife of said Herri- man. A decree a mensa et thoro is not a divorce within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1901. Claimant therefore has no title to restoration. 7. New York Law as to Foreign Divorces. Marriage in New York — Divorce — Decree. (Eugenia Sherwood, widow, 12 P. D., 303.) Appellant married the soldier, by ceremony, in the State of New York, February 28, 1866, and they lived together in that State as husband and w^ife for one year and nine days, when they separated. Some time thereafter soldier left the State of Ncav York for the State of Michigan, accompanied by one Eliza J. \Yhite. While in the State of Michigan soldier applied for and obtained a divorce from claimant. May 5, 1870, on the ground of desertion, and on March 4, 1871, married, by a ceremony, said Eliza J. \Yhite, in the State of New York, and lived with her as her husband until his death in 1879, two children being born to them during this period. Held: That under section 2 of the act of August 7, 1882, which provides that marriages " shall be proved in pension cases to be legal marriages, according to the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or at the time when the right to pension accrued," soldier's second marriage was void, the courts of New York, w^here claimant and soldier were mar- ried, and where she resided at the time the right to pension accrued, having decided that a decree of divorce in another State, proceeding on a constructive service of process by publication, though valid by the law of the forum, is void in the State of New York, and does not change the status of a defendant in the jurisdiction of the State of New York. (See Atherton v. Atherton, 82 Hun, N. Y., 179; In re House, 40 N. Y. St., 286; David v. Davis, 2 Del., 549; Williams v. Wil- liams, 130 N. Y., 193; People r. Baker, 76 N. Y., 78; Vischer v. Vischer, 12 Barb., N. Y., 640, and Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y., 272.) Marriage and divorce — New York — Jurisdiction. (Mary J. Mar- shall, widow, 14 P. D., 173.) The claimant and soldier were married, by ceremony, in the State of New York, June 7, 1868, and they lived together in that State as man and w4fe until April 8, 1886, w^hen the soldier de- serted her. He applied for and obtained a divorce from claim- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 235 ant on November (*), 1801, while in the State of Wisconsin, on the ground of desertion, and on August 2, 1892, he married one Lillian (iridley, the ceremony being performed in the State of Wisconsin. The claimant resided in New York at the time said divorce was granted, was not served Avith process, and made no appearance at the trial and authorized no defense. Held: That the courts of New York having decided that a divorce obtained in another State against a citizen of New York in an action where there was no personal service of process wdthin the former State and no personal appearance in the action by the defendant is void in the State of New York and does not change the status of the defendant in the jurisdiction of the State of New^ York, this claimant is therefore held to be the legal widow of the soldier. 8. Indian Divorces Invalid. Marriage and divorce — Laics of Cherokee Nation. (Lucinda Ross, widow, 12 P. D., 474.) The Cherokee Nation in the year 1859 passed an act prescrib- ing the manner and method of obtaining divorces in said nation. In the year 1806 John Ross, sergeant. Company K, Third Indian Volunteer Home Guards, attempted to divorce his wife accord- ing to an old tribal custom, by sending her away from his home, and then took the claimant herein as his wdfe, the said act still being in force. Held : The attempted divorce w^as futile, and the attempted marriage with claimant void ab initio. 9. Utah Divorces Valid. Marriage — Divorce — Utah — Act June 27^ J 890. (Mary E. Smed- ley, widow, 14 P. D., 99.) The act of Congress approved June 23, 1874, conferred juris- diction upon the probate courts of the Territory of Utah in divorce matters. The act of the Territorial legislature of Utah approved March 6, 1852, gave the j^robate courts of said Terri- tory jurisdiction in divorce matters, and such act was in force August 10, 1876. On said last-mentioned date the probate court of Boxelder County, Utah, issued a decree of divorce between claimant and the soldier herein, which divorce decree is valid upon its face. Held: The said probate court having jurisdiction, and the decree being valid on its face, all statutory requirements and orders of the court having been strictty fulfilled, the claimant Avas regularly divorced from the soldier and is consequently not his widow. 236 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 10. Essentials of a Valid Decree of. Marriage and divorce — Decree — Jurisdiction. (Melissa Boyd, widow, 14 P. D., 279.) A divorce decree w^hich shows upon its face the necessary jurisdiction, the record showing the necessary jurisdictional facts, and such decree being valid and binding in the State in which it was rendered, will be regarded as conclusive by this Department in the administration of pension affairs, provided that no fraud was perpetrated upon the court, directly or indi- rectly, for the purpose of affecting the pensionable rights of ^ny person. Divorce — Decree — Jiidge'^s minutes — Indiana — Record. ( Emma Riley, as widow, 15 P. D., 389.) The records of the circuit court of Randolpli County, Ind., sufficiently show the fact of the rendition of a valid decree of divorce of the claimant from the soldier, and she is, therefore, not his widow. The final formal official record of judgments or decrees is, in Indiana, the' judgment docket; but upon the failure of the clerk of court to enter a judgment or decree upon such docket, the judge's official minutes are competent evidence to show the fact and nature of such judgment or decree, and when the final entry in such docket or in said minutes insufficiently or inaccurately expresses such judgment or decree, the latter should be construed in accordance with the pleadings and the entire record in the cause. Marriage — Divorce — Michigan — Colorado — Collusion — Fraud — Estoppel — Res judicata. (Melissa D. Heazlit, widow, 15 P. D., 553.) Claimant was married to the soldier in Michigan in 1864, and, though still a resident of that State, by collusion with the soldier obtained a divorce from him in Colorado in January, 1883. The soldier remarried in Michigan in March, 1883, and died there in 1901. Claimant denies the validity of the Colorado divorce. Held: (1) That said divorce was valid, as the statutes of Colorado at that date, the defendant being a resident of that State and the offense complained of having been committed within its borders, did not require that the complainant should be a resident thereof; (2) that, if invalid, her fraudulent acts, followed by acquiescence in the soldier's remarriage, would estoj) her from denying its validity, and (3) that under the circum- stances in this case the Department will follow the decision of a court of original and inferior jurisdiction in Michigan, in a suit where the same issue was presented and claimant was a party to PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 237 the proceeding, wherein it was held that said divorce and the subsequent marriage were valid. DESERTED WIFE. See Division of Pension : Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (11 P. D., 200, 288, 377, 494; 12 P. D., 7, 5G, 421, 507 ; 13 P. D., 134, 142, 143, 177, 180, 212, 430 ; 14 P. D., 45, 130, 159, 191, 394, 404, 521 ; 15 P. D., 90, 221, 342). See Construction of Statutes: No. 1 (11 P. D., 77, 90). DIVISION OF PENSION. References. See Divorce: No. 4 (13 P. D., 236). See Marriage: No. 1 (14 P. D., 17, 43) ; No. 2 (ii) (15 P. D., 2.36). See Practice: Nos. 1, 10, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26 (15 P. D., 96; 13 P. D., 161, 176; 12 P. D., 44, 157, 225, 441 ; 13 P. D., 203, 206, 299, 542 ; 14 P. D., 8). Index. 1. Construction of act. 2. Notice of appeal. 3. Pension unlawfully withheld. 4. Pensioner's desertion of his wife. 5. Pensioner divorced. 6. Commencement. 7. Articles of separation. 8. Domicile. 9. Jurisdiction. 10. Residence in Soldiei*s' Home. 11. Failure to prosecute. 12. Marriage. 13. Necessitous circumstances. 14. Payment. 15. Practice. 16. Separation. 17. Evidence. 18. Moral character. 19. Naval Home. 20. Estoppel. 1. Construction of Act. Deserted wife — Act March 3^ 1899 — Evidence. (Mary A. Rothery V. Henry N. Rothery, 11 P. D., 377.) The word " desertion " in the act of March 8, 1899, is used in its general legal sense and means the willful withdrawal of the pen- sioner from his wife, or his voluntary refusal to renew a sus- pended cohabitation, without legal justification. (Rothery v. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77; Richards /'. Richards, ibid., 90; Henry N. Rothery, ibid., 255.) The evidence in this case shows that pensioner did not will- fully desert claimant, but that his separation from his wife is due to her own conduct toward him and is in accordance with her wish. 238 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Division of pension — Act March 5, 1890 — Construction of statutes. (Elizabeth Cooper v. John M. Cooper, 12 P. D., 163.) The portion of soldier's pension forfeited to his wife by rea- son of his desertion, under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, is one-half the pension " due or to become due " him after his statutory desertion of six months subsequent to the pas- sage of the act and during the continuance of said desertion. It is only the pension owing or accruing during the period of statutor}^ desertion that is to be divided. Division of pension — Minor — Remarriage — Vested right — Title — Construction. (Swepston v. Swepston, 15 P. D., 82.) The legal guardian of pensioner's minor child having estab- lished title to the benefit of the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, his right to receive one-half of his father's pension is vested to the extent that it can not be divested, terminated, or suspended by pensioner's subsequent marriage. The " wife " who bars the deserted minor child from receiving the benefit of the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, is the wife first described in said proviso and who is in esse at the time pensioner deserts his said child. The words " no wife " in the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, are limited by the context to the Congressional intent as gathered from the entire act. Division of pension — Act of March 5, 1899 — Desertion — Soldiers'' Home — Construction. (Cashman v. Cashman, 15 P. D., 221.) As the evidence in this case establishes the facts that pensioner was, at the date of claimant's application for one-half his pen- sion an inmate of a Branch of the National Soldiers' Home, and that she is a woman of good moral character and in necessitous circumstances, the allowance of her claim under the third pro- viso of the act of March 3, 1899, was in accordance with the lav; and the evidence, and the same is affirmed. The question of marital desertion is not involved in claims under the third proviso of the act of March 3, 1899. The fourth proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, aside from the last sentence, relates solely to widows, and has no reference to claims for division of pension arising under the first, second, or third provisos of the act. Division of pensions — Act of March 3, 1899 — Minors. (Reversed. Mitchell V. Mitchell, 15 P. D., 382.) Pensioner abandoned his minor children in 1895, at which time he had a lawful wife living, whom he abandoned in 1896, but who is shown to be a woman of immoral character. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 239 Held: His minors have title to one-half his pension under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899. 2. Notice of Appeal. Deserted wife — Act March 3, 1899 — Division of pension — Notice of appeal. (Emily Ellis v. Leroy Ellis, 11 P. D., 288.) In cases of contest over the division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899, the appellee is entitled to notice of the appeal and a copy thereof and reasonable time in which to file a brief and argument in support of the Bureau action appealed from. 3. Pension Unlawfully Withheld. Division of pension — Act March S, 1899 — Repayment to pensioner. Henry N. Rothery, 11 P. D., 255.) It having been decided that upon a proper construction of the law and upon the evidence in the case the division of the pension and the payment to the wife of this pensioner, by virtue of the act named, were erroneous and without proper warrant of law, the refusal to restore to him the amount of which he was de- prived is likewise illegal, and it is directed that such amount shall be paid to him. 4. Pensioner's Desertion of His Wife. Deserted wife — Act March 3, 1899. (Mary C. Slagle, widow, 11 P. D., 260.) It appearing from soldier's own testimony that he deserted his wife and that she was a woman of good moral character; and it further appearing that said wife is in necessitous circumstances, the action of the Bureau of Pensions in paying to said wife one- half of the pension he was drawing was proper and is affirmed. Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Desertion. (Nancy J. Harris v. Homer V. Harris, 12 P. D., 7.) As the evidence in the case fails to show that pensioner deserted his wife, within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899, the payment to her of one-half of his pension was error. Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Separation. (Catherine Fleagle v. Josiah Fleagle, 12 P. D., 56.) Claimant at the date of filing her claim for one-half of sol- dier's pension under the act of March 3, 1899, was living sepa- rate and apart from her husband pursuant to a mutual agree- ment for separation executed March 10, 1897, which agreement was in full force and effect. She was, therefore, not in position to charge her husband with desertion, a.s his absence from her is with her consent and in accordance with her express agreement. 240 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. (Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, par. 256; 9 Am. and Eng. Ency., 2d ed., 767; Stoffer v. Stoffer, 50 Mich., 491.) Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Desertion. (Alice Smith V, Thomas Smith, 12 P. D., 421.) The fact that claimant, since the allowance of her claim for division of her husband's pension, refused to live with him will not justify a reversal of the Bureau action. Division of pensio7i — Act of March 3, .1899 — Separation. (Eliza- beth Ann Coats v. Andrew Coats, 12 P. D., 507.) 1. The cAddence in this case fails to satisfactorily show that pensioner's absence from claimant since March 3, 1899, was in opposition to her wishes or against her consent. 2. Separation by mutual consent does not constitute desertion (Rothery v. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77, 377). Consent may be inferred from conduct (Ingersoll v. Ingersoll, 49 Pa. St., 249). Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Practice. (Charlotte L. Livengood v. John A. Livengood, 13 P. D., 134.) First. The adjudication of a claim under the third proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, as a claim under the first proviso of said act is error. Second. Pensioner having left the National Soldiers' Home subsequent to the date on which claimant filed her said first application, she thereupon filed a claim based upon the first proviso of said act of March 3, 1899, alleging desertion, which claim was rejected by the Bureau on the ground that she had failed to prove statutory desertion. Held: That the testimony taken on special examination fairly shows pensioner responsible for the separation from his wife, and that his intemperate habits and abuse of claimant legally justified her in refusing to renew^ the suspended marital rela- tions terminated by his desertion September 15, 1901. Division of pensio7i — Act of March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Evidence. (Martha J. Haines v. John Haines, 13 P. D., 142.) Pensioner's contention that he did not desert claimant, but that she was responsible for the separation, is not sustained by the evidence, she being legally justified in her refusal to renew the marital relations suspended by her husband's conviction of adultery. Divisio7i of pension — Act March 5, 1899 — Desertion. (Clifford H. Buzick /'. James S. Buzick, 13 P. D., 143.) Where a divorce is granted the husband for the fault of the wife and she voluntarily assumes the exclusive custody and con- trol of their minor child, the failure of the father to contribute to the support of the child while deprived of its custody does PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 241 not constitute desertion of such child within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. Division of pension — Act of March 3^ 1899 — Desertion. (Fannie Smith V. William A. Smith, 13 P. D., 177.) The evidence in this case fails to show desertion on the part of the pensioner, under the act of March 3, 1899, the separation of the parties being the result of claimant's desire to change their place of residence in opposition to the wishes of pensioner, and make her home with her children instead of with her husband. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Evidence. (Mary E. Head v. George Head, 13 P. D., 180.) The evidence in this case shows that claimant is the wife of pensioner and that he deserted her for more than six months prior to the date on which she filed her application under the act of March 3, 1899; that claimant is a woman of good moral character and in necessitous circumstances. Divisio7i of pension — Marital desertion. (Martha A. Hayes v. Abner Hayes, 13 P. D., 212.) The question of marital desertion is immaterial, so far as it involves the wife's right to one-half her husband's pension under the second or third proviso of the act of March 3, 1899. (Medley V. Medley, 12 P. D., 490; Adams v. Adams, ibid., 370, and Liven- good V. Livengood, 13 P. D., 134.) Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899. — Desertion. (Elizabeth Martin v. David W. Martin, 13 P. D., 430.) By the term '' statutory desertion," as applied to the act of March 3, 1899, is meant continuous desertion for the statutory period of over six months subsequent to the passage of said act. The evidence in this case not only fails to establish statutory desertion of the wife by her husband, within the meaning of the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, but also fails to show desertion by pensioner within the general legal definition of that word as applied to matrimonial relations. Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Desertion. (Lockard v. Lockard, 14 P. D., 45.) Where the husband, by his cruelty and abuse, drives his wife from the matrimonial home it may be presumed that he intended to effect a separation by his own wrongful and illegal acts. The one who intentionally drives the other away is the deserter. (Rothery v. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77, 377; Barnett v. Barnett, 27 Ind. App., 471.) 13070—06 16 242 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Desertion. (Byrns v. Byrns, 14 P. D., 404.) Pensioner's contention that he did not desert chiiniant is not sustained by the evidence in this case. A wife deserted by her husband is, under the hiws of Cali- fornia, entitled to her own domicile. (Moffatt r. Moffatt, 5 CaL, 281; Hardenberger v. Hardenberger, 14 CaL, 654.) Division of pension — Act March 3^ 1899 — Desertion. (Hender- shott v. Hendershott, 14 P. D., 130.) The evidence in this case fails to establish the fact that pen- sioner^ deserted claimant or that he was the party in fault for the separation. A\Tiere the wife, by her cruelty and misconduct, drives her husband from her, it may be presumed that she intended to effect a separation by her illegal acts. The one who inten- tionally drives the other away is the deserter. (Rothery v. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77, 377; AVhitney i\ AVliitney, ibid., 301; Lockard v. Lockard, 14 P. D., No. 12, current series; Barnett v. Barnett, 27 Ind., 471 ; Warner v. Warner, 54 Mich., 492 ; Lea i\ Lea, 99 Mass., 493.) Drafting affidavits for both parties and their witnesses and administering the oath as a notary public do not raise the pre- sumption that the person performing said acts is the attorney for either party, nor is he thereby disqualified from subsequently becoming the attorney for either of the parties in a claim for division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899. Division of pension — Desertion — Evidence. (Rebecca F. Kendell V. William T. Kendell, 14 P. D., 159.) The husband, having deserted his w4fe, can not, by offering her a home elsewhere (which he does not possess), constitute her the deserter merely because she refuses to follow him. The evidence in this case fairly shows that pensioner deserted his wdfe, and that she is legally justified in refusing to renew the suspended marital relations. Division of pension— Insanity — Desertion — Intent. (Burnham v, Burnham, 14 P. D., 191.) 'Where pensioner, at the date of his wife's application for one- half his pension under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, and at the date of the alleged desertion, was adjudged insane, it is incvmibent upon the wife, in order to establish de- sertion under said act, to show that her husband, at the date of the alleged desertion, was capable of understanding and entertaining an intent to desert her, as intent is an essential ele- ment in desertion. " Desertion begins with the intent to desert." (Martin v. Martin, 13 P. D., 430.) PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 243 Division of pension — Act March 3^ 1899 — Cruelty — Desertion. (Demo V. Demo, 14 P. D.', 394.) The wife who, by her cruelty, drives her husband from home is herself the deserter. Cruelty was, at the common law, cause for a decree of separa- tion. Cruelty, as it relates to the marital status, is any conduct on the part of either of the married parties as endangers the life, body, or health of the other and renders cohabitation unsafe or intolerable. False charges and a persistent course of jealous conduct on the part of the Avife, without cause, following her husband about, employing detectives to do so, and attempts to humiliate, ex- asperate, and insult him amount to such cruelty as would justify a separation Avithout subjecting the husband to the charge of marital desertion within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. Division of pension — Desertion — Divorce — Separation — Act of March 3, 1899. (Jones :r. Jones, 14 P. D., 521.) Pensioner's bill for divorce was based upon the fact that he had been living apart from claimant without any cohabitation for five consecutive years next before his application. The question of marital desertion w^as, therefore, not involved in the judicial proceedings or passed upon by the court granting him a decree of divorce. Where a husband leaves his wife and fails to contribute to her support and without procuring a divorce from her, or, believ- ing her to be dead, marries another woman, the law will presume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he intended to de- sert his wife. Pensioner having left claimant and the matrimonial domicile, it is incumbent upon him to show that he was legally justified in so doing, in order to relieve himself of the charge of desertion. So much of the Bureau action of April 1, 1904, as held that " pensioner is not legally chargeable with marital desertion for any period prior to February 17, 1904," the date on which he procured a divorce from claimant in Kentucky, is not sustained by the evidence. Division of pension — Res judicata — Desertion — Divorce. (Tay- lor /;. Taylor, 15 P. D., 90.) The judicial finding of facts of both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire courts is adverse to pensioner's contention that he did not desert claimant; that she had refused to live with him, and was not in necessitous circumstances. Pensioner and claimant having submitted their domestic con- 244 PEI^fSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. troversy, including his alleged matrimonial desertion and her necessitous circumstances, to a court of competent jurisdiction, they are bound by the judicial determination thereof. Pensioner's New Hampshire decree of divorce from claimant was not only in coiiflict with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Avherein they resided, but was also set aside by the New Hampshire court. Division of pension — Desertion — Retroactire laws. (Mann v. Mann, 15 P. D., 342.) The act of March 3, 1899, amendatory of section 4766, Revised Statutes, is prospective in terms and effect, and is not retroactive or unconstitutional. Matrimonial desertion is a continuous offense or violation of the marriage contract, and such desertion, when proved, is pre- sumed to continue until its termination is proved or the contrary appears. The fact that pensioner deserted claimant prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1899, does not defeat her right to one-half his pension under said act, provided the desertion continued for over six months subsequent to the passage of said act and up to the date of filing her application in the Bureau of Pensions. 6. Pensioner Divorced. Deserted wife — Act March 3^ 1899 — Divorce — Jurisdiction. (Eliza McKee i\ James H. McKee, 11 P. D., 494.) It appearing from a duly certified copy of the court record that pensioner w^as divorced from the claimant, who seeks a division of his pension under the act of March 3, 1899, prior to filing such claim, the record also showing that said court ac- quired jurisdiction over said alleged deserted wife in the suit for said divorce, she was not pensioner's wife, and is not entitled to receive one-half of his pension. 6. Commencement. Division of pension — C ommencemjent — Declaration — Notice — Proof — Suspension of payment. (Caroline Adams v. George Adams, 12 P. D., 370.) 1. Appellant filed her claim under the act of March 3, 1899, on April 11, 1901, and it having been established that pensioner was at that date an inmate of a State Home, and had been an inmate of such Home from the date of the quarterly payment of his pen- sion preceding the filing of such claim, March 4, 1901, and con- tinuously since, and had also deserted said claimant over six months prior to said quarterly payment and subsequent to the passage of said act, and had been in such desertion continuously t>ENSIO]^ AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 245 since, on the allowance of her claim the payment of one-half of such payment should have commenced from said last quarterly payment, March 4, 1901, under the decision in the case of Cooper V. Cooper (12 P. D., 163). 2. The practice of the Bureau of Pensions in paying the wife of a pensioner, under the act of March 3, 1899, one-half only of so much of the pension as remains in the hands of the pension agent on the quarterly payment day subsequent to the allowance of the claim is abrogated. 3. The filing of a valid declaration for division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899, is notice to the Government of the claim for one-half of the pension that may be due or accruing on said date, and further j^ayment of one-half the pension becom- ing due to the pensioner should be suspended until the adjudica- tion of the claim, and for the period thereafter allowed for appeal, unless an appeal is waived. 4. A declaration under the act of March 3, 1899, must be accompanied by proof in support thereof sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the law. 5. The Bureau of Pensions will promptly notify the claimant and pensioner of the action taken in a claim filed under the act of March 3, 1899, and that thirty days from the receipt of such notice will be allowed in which to file an appeal, during which period payment of one-half of the pension involved will be suspended, unless an appeal is waived. 6. The face brief should show the date on which payment to the wife of one-half of her husband's pension commenced. 7. Articles of Separation. Division of pension, act of March -5, J 899 — Articles of separation. (Amanda Crawford v. William H. Crawford, 12 P. D., 304.) Claimant, at the date of filing her claim for one-half of sol- dier's pension under the act of March 3, 1899, was living separate and apart from her husband, pursuant to a mutual agreement for separation executed December 17, 1898, wdiich agreement was in full force and effect. She was, therefore, not in position to charge her husband with desertion, as his absence from her was with her consent and in accordance with her express agreement. (Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, par. 256; 9 Am. and Eng. Ency. L., 2d ed., 767 ; Stoffer v. Stoffer, 50 Mich., 491 ; Fleagle v. Fleagle, 12 P. D., 67.) 8. Domicile. Division of pension^ act of March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Domicile. (lona A. Pierce v. Chester Pierce, 12 P. D., 412.) 1. The refusal of the wife to follow her husband, who had 246 PENSION AND BOUNTY-T.AND CLAIMS. deserted her, to another State and leave her home upon the mere offer of her husband to provide a home for her does not neces- saril}^ constitute her the deserter. (Schouler's Domestic Rela- tions, 3d ed., par. 38; Gleason v. Gleason, 4 Wis., 64; Bishop v. Bishop, 30 Pa. St., 412 ; Hardenberger v. Hardenberger, 14 Cal., 654; Powell v. Powell, 29 Vt., 148; Phelan v. Phelan, 35 111. App., 511, and 135 111., 445.) 2. The desertion of the husband entitled the wife to her own domicile. (Moffatt v. Moffatt, 5 Cal., 281.) Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Domicile — Evidence. (Clarke v. Clarke, 14 P. D., 479.) Claimant having been paid one-half her husband's pension under an application void because prematurely filed, the pen- sioner is entitled to be reimbursed the one-half pension thus wrongfully withheld from him, less an overpayment made him after his w^fe had filed a valid application which was properly allowed and to which she was legally entitled. Where, after an ex parte special examination of claimant and her witnesses, the case is reopened and another special examina- tion ordered, of which pensioner is duly notified, but declines to avail himself of his right to be present in person or by attor- ney, he is estopped to allege as error the lack of notice in the prior special examination. Pensioner's contentions that claimant is not his lawful wife; that he did not desert her, but that she deserted him, and that he did not have notice of the special examination or an oppor- tunity to present his witnesses and cross-examine claimant and her witnesses, are not sustained by the evidence in this case. Claimant, having been deserted by her husband, was entitled to her separate domicile. His marital duty required him to return to her in order to terminate the period of his desertion, and if upon his return to her domicile with the offer to resume marital relations she was legally justified in refusing to accept his offer, she is not chargeable with desertion by reason of such refusal. The fact that pensioner s suit against claimant for divorce, commenced in 1900, is still pending, affords no sufficient reason for further delaying the consideration of his appeal or direct- ing further special examination. Division of pensions — Evidence — Domicile — Special examination. (Brown v. Brown, 15 P. D., 14.) Claimant's contention that the Bureau action rejecting her claim was reached by considering hearsay and incompetent evi- dence is not apparent from an examination of records and evi- dence in this case. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 247 AVlieie no objection or exception was taken by claimant or her attorney before the special examiner to the admission of any tes- timony the question as to whether hearsay testimony was im- properly taken by the examiner can not be raised for the first time on appeal. The fact that claimant w^as excluded from the special exami- nation of two of pensioner's witnesses by reason of their objec- *on to her presence in their house, and their refusal to testify elsewhere, was not error, her attorney having been present and cross-examined said witnesses. The law recognizes the right of the husband as the head of the family to fix the matrimonial domicile, and requires the wife to follow the husband whenever he changes such domicile, under penalty of being chargeable with desertion if she unreasonably or without legal justification refuses to do so. The evidence in this case fails to show^ that pensioner deserted claimant within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899, as the separation of the parties was due to claimant's refusal to consent to her husband's change of domicile. 9. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction — Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Prac- tice. (Mary F. Millard v. Isaiah Millard, 12 P. D., 263.) Claimant's declaration under the act of March 3, 1899, alleging desertion by the pensioner, her husband, and claiming one-half of his pension, having been filed April 22, 1899, less than six months after the passage of said act, conferred no jurisdiction on the Commissioner to pass on the facts alleged in such declara- tion, the action holding that appellant was not a person of good moral character and rejecting her claim is reversed. (See cases of Rothery v. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77, 377, and Richards v. Rich- ards, ibid., 90.) Division of pension — Necessitous circumstances — Jurisdiction. (Eliza Fisher t\ William A. Fisher, 12 P. D., 336.) A wife w^ho owns a house and lot valued at $1,150, a lot valued at $65, household furniture valued at $50, has $150 in bank, and rents a house for which she pays $600 per annum, and by sub leasing of rooms supports herself, is not in necessitous circum- stances within the provisions of the act of March 3, 1899, and is not entitled to one-half her husband's pension of $17 per month, he being w^ithout other means of support than his daily labor. The declaration filed by claimant July 17, 1899, for division of her husband's pension based on desertion was void and con- ferred no jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Pensions to sus- pend or withhold pension or any portion thereof, or to pass upon 248 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the question of desertion, as the desertion named in the act of March 8, 1899, could not exist until after the expiration of six months from the passage of said act. (Rothery v. Rothery, 11 P. D., 77, 377; Richards r. Richards, ibid., 90; Henry M. Rothery, ibid., 255, and Millard r. Millard, 12 P. D., 262.) 10. Residence in Soldiers' Home. Diindon of pension — Act March 3, 1899. Mary A. Filones v. Christopher Filones, 12 P. D., 237.) Pensioner was shown to have been inmate of a State Home for soldiers or sailors for over two months after the filing of an application by his wife for division of his pension under the second proviso of the act of March 3, 1899. The rejection of her said claim on the ground that the pensioner was not, at the date of the adjudication, an inmate of a Soldiers' Home, was, there- fore, error. Division of pension — Act March. J, 1899 — Residence in a Soldiers^ Home. (Josephine Medley v. John A. Medley, 12 P. D., 490.) Where a wife bases her application for division of her hus- band's pension on the sole ground that he is an inmate of a State Home for soldiers or sailors, the question of desertion is not in- * volved, and the rejection of such claim, under the act of March 3, 1899, on the ground that '' desertion complained of has not ex- isted for six months," is error. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — National Soldiers^ Home — Residence. (Barker i\ Barker, 15 P. D., 56.) A pensioner's residence in a National Soldiers' Home is not terminated by his temporary absence therefrom on furlough, within the intent of the third proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, and his wife is entitled to one-half of his pension during his residence therein, she being in necessitous circumstances and of good moral character. Division of pensions — Act of March 3, 1899 — Payment — Soldiers'^ Home — Desertion — Practice — Notice. (Turner v. Turner, 15 P. D., 132.) The evidence in this case fails to show that pensioner deserted claimant. In a claim for division of pension based upon the first and third provisos of the act of March 3, 1899, where the proof fails to sustain the claim under the first proviso, but does sustain the claim under the third proviso, the claimant is only entitled to one-half of the pension drawn in pensioner's behalf or to which he became entitled during his residence in a National Soldiers' Home. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 249 AVliere a wife is allowed one-half her husbaiKrs pension under the third proviso of the act of March 3, 181)9, payment to her to cease at the date of her husband's discharge from the National Soldiers' Home, and she is duly advised of said adjudication by the Bureau, she is not entitled to further notice in order to ter- minate payment to her. Neither a wife nor a minor child, by securing an allowance of one-half of a soldier's pension under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1899, thereby becomes a pensioner or entitled to thirty days' notice of termination of payment thereof. The question of marital desertion, so far as it involves the wife's right to one-half of her husband's pension under the second or third proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, is immaterial. An allowance of a claim under the act of March 3, 1899, with- out stating the date on which the division of pension will com- mence, is error. 11. Failure to Prosecute. Division of pensions — Failure to prosecute — Rejection. (Harriet Randall /'. Jacob Randall, 13 P. D., 411.) Claimant filed her application March 13, 1902, for one-half her husband's pension and delayed for over a year to file any evidence in support thereof. The rejection of her said application by the Bureau March 10, 1903, on the ground that she had failed to furnish any evidence in support of her claim, was not error. Justice to the pensioner as w^ell as to the meritorious claimant requires that there be no unnecessary delay in the prosecution and adjudication of claims under the first three provisos of the act of March 3, 1899. Affidavits as to the merits of the claim, filed after an appeal to the Department from the final action of the Bureau of Pensions, can not be properly considered on appeal. (See rule 19 of Practice.) Since May 21, 1902, claimants for division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899, are required to file with their declarations proof in support thereof of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under said act. See departmental decision in the case of x^idams v. Adams (12 ^ P. D., 370-378) and Bureau order of May 21, 1902. 12. Marriage. Diimion of pension — Act of March 3, 1890 — Marriage — Evidence- Proof. (Delia M. Forbin v. Joseph C. Forbin, 13 P. D., 120.) Under the laws of the State of Ohio claimant has proved a valid subsisting legal marriage with pensioner. 250 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. The evidence also shows that pensioner deserted chiiniant for more than six months prior to February 0, 1902, the date on which she filed her application; that she is a woman of good moral character and in necessitous circumstances. Division of peiision — Act of March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Evi- dence — Marriage. (Mary Brobst r. Henry Brobst, 13 P. D., 218.) Pensioner's contention that claimant drove him from home by her abusive language rests solely upon his own testimony and is not sustained, but is outweighed by other evidence in the case. Pensioner's ceremonial marriage to claimant in the State of Indiana in 1856 is not shown to be illegal because of claimant's prior marriage in said State in 1846, or her subsequent marriage to one Hansford Brown in said State of Indiana in 1875, with whom she cohabited until his death; nor by pensioner's subse- quent mariage in 1869, as the evidence shows that claimant's marriage to pensioner was valid and has not been dissolved by death or divorce, thus outweighing the legal presumptions in favor of the last marriages. Division of pension — Act March ^, 1899 — Evidence — Marriage. (Margery Sharkey v. John Sharkey, 13 P. D., 297.) Pensioner's contention that he was never married to claimant and that she is not his lawful wife is" not sustained by the evi- dence, which fairly establishes a valid marriage under the laws of Pennsylvania. Desertion — Minor — Act March 3, 1899 — Divorce. (Nancy Dunn, guardian of Freddie Dunn, v. Charles H. Dunn, 13 P. D., 422.) Pensioner deserted his minor child, aged 8 months, April 17, 1894, since which time he has failed to in any manner contribute to its support. The fact that pensioner's wife, and mother of their said minor child, procured a divorce from pensioner March 11, 1898, on the ground of desertion, and was by the court awarded the '' care, custody, and education " of their said child, does not break the continuity of pensioner's desertion of the child or release him from his parental duty to aid in its maintenance and support, he being the party at fault. Division of pension — Divorce decree — Evidence — Fraud — Practice. (Nancy E. Lynch v. Philip Lynch, 13 P. D., 347.) A decree of divorce valid on its face should be accepted as con- clusive of the marital status so long as the parties to the suit are alive and the courts open to them. See Cooper v. Cooper (13 P. D., 208) and Powell v. Powell (13 P. D., 236). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 251 13. Necessitous Circumstances. Dimsion of ])eamon — Act March 3, 1899 — Necessitous circum- .stances — Desertion. (Sarah J. Diistin v. Albert M. Dustin, 18 P. D.,T7.) • Pensioner aged 61 years, well nourished, not wholly incapaci- tated from earning his support by manual labor, is in receipt of an income of $204 per annum. Claimant is 58 years of age, in poor health, with one minor child under 16 years of' age dependent upon her for support. She is possessed of real estate assessed at $300 cash valuation and personal property valued at about $50. • Held: That claimant is shown to be in "necessitous circum- stances '' within the meaning of the act of March 8, 1899. (See departmental decisions in the case of Fisher /'. P'isher, 12 P. D., 386, and Pierce v. Pierce, ibid., 412-^15.) The evidence further shows that pensioner deserted claimant for more than eight years prior to July 30, 1900, the date on which she filed her application for one-half his pension under the act of March 3, 1899; that said desertion has been con- tinuous, and that she is a woman of good moral character. Held: That claimant is entitled to one-half her husband's pension due or to become due said pensioner on and after July 30, 1900 (deducting payments made her under the Bureau adjudication of April 29, 1901), in accordance with the depart- mental decision in the case of Adams r. Adams (12 P. D., 370). (See also the case of Cooper /'. Cooper, ibid., 163.) Necessitous circumstances — Act of March 3, 1899 — Evidence. (Martha Ashley tK John F. Ashley, 18 P. D., 205.) The adjudication and allowance of a claim under the act of March 8, 1899, in the absence of any testimony that the claimant is in necessitous circumstances, is clearly error. Division of peiision — Act March 3, 1899 — Evidence — Attorneys. (Mary E. Parker v. Jackson Parker, 13 P. D., 283.) The evidence in this case fails to satisfactorily show that claimant is in necessitous circumstances within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. Attorneys prohibited from appearing for both parties in contested cases under act of March 3, 1899. Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Necessitous circum- stances. (Sarah E. Daugherty i\ William Doherty, 18 P. D., 802.) Claimant in the possession of $2,800 worth of real and personal estate is not in necessitous circumstances within the meaning of the act of March 8, 1899, her husband being over 77 years of age and his means of support limited to his pension of $10 per month. 252 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Necessitous circmn- stances. (Hunter r. Hunter, 14 P. I)., K3G.) By the term " necessitous circumstances ■' in the act of March 3, 1899, as applied to the condition of the wife, is meant her need of those necessaries which are suitable to her situation and her husband's condition in life, and which he is bound to provide, or for which he is liable on an implied contract in case he fails to provide. The financial, physical, and social condition of the pensioner are facts to be considered in connection with the other facts in the case in determining the actual necessitous condition of the claim- ant under the act of March 3, 1899. Pensioner is 81 years of age, wholly incapacitated for earning his support by manual labor, and with no means of support aside from his pension of $12 per month. Claimant is 57 years of age, able to earn $4 per week by manual labor, the owner of a 160-acre farm, valued by her and her witnesses at over $1,500, subject to a mortgage of $450, the rental value of the farm being about $160 in 1902. Held: Claimant is not in necessitous circumstances within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899, and her claim was properly rejected. Division of pension — Necessitous circumstances — Evidence. (Vog- ler V. Vogler, 14 P. D., 385.) Claimant, 54 years of age, is in the sole and undisputed possession and enjoyment of a homestead in the State of New York, valued at $1,()00; has $50 in cash, and has received from pensioner $50 July 10, 1903, and $20 September IG, 1903. The title to the real property, which is unencumbered, is jointly in claimant and pensioner, their interests being that of tenants by the entirety. Pensioner, 66 years of age, is not shown to be in possession of any means of support other than his interest in said home- stead, his pension of $12 per month, and the right to admission to a Soldiers' Home. Held : That claimant is not shown to be in necessitous cir- cumstances within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. Division of pension — Necessitous circumstances — Estoppel — Mar- riage — Missouri. (Meister (formerly Jordan) v. Jordan, 15 P. D., 246.) Claim was rejected on the ground that claimant was not in necessitous circumstances. Other points not considered. Claim- ant married soldier in 1862, and subsequently married one Meister in 1865, and lived with him as his wife until his death PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 258 in June, 1890. Said Meister left her a homestead, vakied at from $1,000 to $1,*200, which affords her a home and support. Held: That as claimant is enjoying property left her by her second husband, Meister, affording her a support, she is not in necessitous circumstances, and that claimant by her conduct is estopped from denying the validity of her second marriage or her right and interest in and to the property now held and en- joyed by her by virtue of said second marriage for the purpose of establishing title to one-half of her first husband's pension. Division of pension — Cruelty — Insanity — Desertion — Act of March 3, 1899. (Green v. Green, 15 P. D., 450.) A persistent course of jealous conduct on the part of the husband; falsely charging his wife with immorality in the presence of their children ; attempting to 'restrain her of her liberty without just cause, and threatening her with corporal punishment amounts, under the law of the State of Missouri, to " such indignities " as to render her " condition intolerable," and legally justifies her in refusing to resume marital relations suspended by reason of his said misconduct. Where the course of conduct of one of the married parties toward the other is cruel, and such as would naturally tend to drive such other from the matrimonial home and destroy or terminate all conjugal relations between them, the party guilty of such misconduct is estopped to deny or assert that he did not intend the natural, logical, and reasonable result thereof. Whether the insanity of the husband will excuse the acts of cruelty or desertion depends upon whether he was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the acts charged at the time of their commission. Sanity is presumed until the contrary is shown by evidence, and the law does not excuse unless insanity is of such a character as to actually render the person incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in respect to the acts committed. Division of pension -Act of March 3, 1899 — Necessitous circum- stances. (Raymond /'. Raymond, 15 P. D., 49G.) Claimant contends that her life estate in an undivided one- half interest in the land upon which she and her daughter lived was terminated under the terms of her deceased husband's will by her marriage to pensioner. The will, however, provided that in case she should " marry and at any time thereafter should become single by desertion or death or choice then the place (the land upon which she and her daughter lives) shall be an undivided home in comforts or profits for both." 254 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Held: That claimant having married pensioner, who subse- quently deserted her, she is entitled to all the rights and title under said will to which she was entitled prior to her marriage to pensioner, but which were suspended at the time of her said marriage and continued suspended only during the period she was living with pensioner. 14. Payment. Division of pension — Act March J, 1899 — Payment — Treasurer of Soldiers^ Home. (Mary Jane Tilton, r. Kichard R. Tilton, 13 P. D., 3G3.) The provision in the third proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, that one-half the pension '' shall be paid by the treasurer " is limited to those cases where the treasurer of a National Soldiers' Home has in his possession funds from which the payment ordered by the Commissioner of Pensions can be made, and if for any reason the treasurer has no such funds and the pensioner has ceased to be an inmate of the Home, then the one-half of the pension to which claimant under said act is shown to be entitled should be withheld from future accruing pension and paid claim- ant by the United States pension agent under the direction of the Commissioner of Pensions. Where through administrative error or mistake the pensioner has been paid the one-half his pension, to which his wife has duly established her legal title, the amount thus erroneously paid him should be withheld from his accruing pension and paid to the wife under the provision of the act of March 3, 1899, subject to the limitation of Rule 16 of Practice. 15. Practice. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Practice — Dismissal. (Sarah E. Kilmer r. John Kilmer, 13 P. D., 270.) An application under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, void because prematurely filed ; the question of desertion is immaterial. Pensioner's contention having been conceded by the Bureau and the $225 pension unlawfully withheld from him having been directed to be paid him January 7, 1903, his appeal from the Bureau action of April 2, 1900, is dismissed. Division of j)ensions — Evidence — Practice — Rule 19 — Desertion. (Alice Irene Crume v. George M. Crume, 13 P. D., 424.) The evidence in this case fails to satisfactorily show marital desertion on the part of pensioner, or that claimant is not respon- sible for the separation. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 255 The provision of Rule of Practice 19 that " No additional evi- dence upon the merits of the claim should be filed by either appel- lant or api^ellee, or considered on appeal," does not apply to affidavits filed prior to the appeal, and which Avere passed upon by the Bureau. Din'mon of j^enmon — xict March 3, 1899 — Practice. (Bowman v. Bowman, 14 P. D., 120.) Rule 10 of Practice before the Commissioner of Pensions, allowing ninety days in which to furnish evidence called for by the Bureau, is not applicable to cases for division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899. (See Rules of Practice, of May 21, 1902, as amended by Order No. 69, of May 20, 1903, pars. 14 and 15; Hyatt v. Hyatt, 14 P. D.) Claimant delayed for over thirty days to furnish the evidence called for by the Bureau, and made no application for extension of time. The rejection of her claim on the evidence then on file, which failed to establish her necessitous circumstances, within the meaning of said act, was not error. The evidence in this case fails to show that claimant is in necessitous circumstances, within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. Dimsion of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Practice. (Washburn v. Washburn, 14 P. D., 127.) Where claimant delayed for over tw^o months to file the nec- essary evidence, called for by the Bureau, to establish her claim under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, the rejection of her said claim will not be reversed because she has subse- quently filed the evidence called for, her laches being unex- plained, and no application for extension of time having been made to the Bureau. Claimant having failed to complete her claim, it was properly rejected under paragraph 15 of Order No. 69, approved May 20, 1903. Division of pension — Desertion — Decree— Res judicata. (Bur- dette V. Burdette, alias Oakley, 14 P. D., 146.) Claimant having left her husband and the matrimonial domi- cile, it is incumbent upon her to show by satisfactory evidence that she was legally justified in her said separation in order to establish marital desertion on the part of the husband. Claimant having submitted her domestic controversy to the courts, she is bound by their judicial decisions therein, no appeal having been taken therefrom. An unsworn petition can not be considered in the adjudication 256 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. of claims for the division of pension under the act of March 8, 1899. The evidence in this case fails to establish desertion on the part of pensioner, as the separation appears to have resulted from domestic discord and a mutual desire for separation. Separation, to constitute desertion, must be against the will of the innocent party. Division of pension — Practice — Special examiners, (Buck /'. Buck, 14 P. D., 150.) Pensioner's sole assignment of error in his appeal is that the special examiner failed and refused to take the depositions of his eleven impeaching witnesses. Held: That said assignment is defective in that it fails to show that any application had been made to the Commissioner of Pensions for an examination of said witnesses, and refused by the Commissioner, and for the further reason that the appeal fails to allege that the testimony of the witnesses, sought to be impeached, was untrue. Appellant alleged no error before the special examiner, and took no exceptions to his rulings, and the question as to whether the examiner properly exercised his discretion in conducting the examination can not, against the objection of appellee, be per- mitted to be first raised on appeal. Neither claimant nor pensioner, in claims under the act of March 3, 1899, is entitled, as a legal right, to the services of a special examiner. Divisio7i of pension — Marriage — Divorce — Jurisdiction. (Mor- ley V. Morley, 14 P. D., 230.) 1. Pensioner having submitted the question of the validity of his marriage with claimant to a court of competent jurisdiction, he is bound by the final judicial determination the.reof, no appeal having been taken therefrom. 2. The evidence in this case fairly establishes the facts neces- sary to prove claimant's title to one-half her husband's pension under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, viz, that she is the lawful wife of pensioner ; that he had deserted her for over six months immediately prior to the date on which she filed her application under said act; that she is a woman of good moral character and in necessitous circumstances. Division of pension — Evidence — Marriage — Practice. (Wardwell V. Wardwell, 14 P. D., 234.) Where claimant has filed a valid declaration under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, with proof in support thereof sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the law, and no evidence is filed by pensioner after due notice of said PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 257 claim, the rejection of her claim on the ground that she '' has failed to furnish the evidence necessary to establish her title within the meaning of the act " is error. It is a rule of evidence, recognized and enforced by Federal and State courts generally, that a party attacking a duly estab- lished marriage on the ground that one of the parties to such marriage was incompetent to contract the marriage by reason of a prior subsisting marriage must not only prove a valid prior marriage, but also that it has not been dissolved in any manner at the time of the subsequent marriage, even though it involved the proving of a negative ; that every presumption is in favor of the validity of the established marriage, and all these presump- tions must be overcome by satisfactory, irrefragable proof, the burden of proof being upon the party attacking the marriage. Legal wifehood is established, prima facie, under act of March 3, 1899, by proof of marriage under the general rules of evidence applicable thereto, and claimants are entitled to the benefit of the presumptions in favor of marriage. Division of Pension — Practice — Rule 16 — Act of March 3, J 899. White V. Wliite, 14 P. D., 313.) '\^niere a claim for division of pension based upon a declara- tion alleging six months' desertion, under the first proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, was properly rejected on the ground that the statutory desertion of six months was not established, and claimant was subsequently allowed a claim under a subse- quent declaration based upon the second proviso of said act, the question of desertion was not in issue under said second declaration, and can not be considered on appeal. A declaration based upon the second proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, will not justify an allowance of a claim for divi- sion of pension under the first proviso of said act. Rule 16 of Practice does not, and was not designed to, deprive either party of the right of appeal after thirty days ; but unless the appeal is filed within thirty days from the receipt of notice of the Bureau action, payments of pension made in accordance with such Bureau action will not be affected by the appeal, in the absence of fraud or mistake of fact. Division of Pension — Practice — Reimbursement — Act of March 3, 1899. (Frederick W. Hyatt, 14 P. D., 367.) , Prior to the adoption of any rules of practice governing appeal from Bureau actions in cases arising under the first three pro- visos of the act of March 3, 1899, and prior to departmental decisions in the case of Ellis v. Ellis (11 P. D., 288), pensioner filed an appeal, February 18, 1901, from the Bureau action of 13070—06 17 258 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. September 6, 1900, allowing his wife one-half his pension on the ground of his desertion of her. On August 27, 1901, he made due proof of service of a copy of his appeal upon the appellee. Held: That said proof of service was, in the absence of any rule of practice to the contrary, an amendment of his original appeal, nunc pro tunc, and constituted a valid appeal from the date of filing. Said appeal having been accepted and docketed as of the date of filing, the Bureau should have suspended payment to the wife of the one-half of the pension in controversy February 18, 1901, and pending the consideration of the appeal, and the con- tinuation of the payment of one-half his pension to his wife subsequent thereto was error. Said appeal having been sustained by the Department, and the Bureau action of September 6, 1900, appealed from having been reversed March 18, 1902, on the ground that the evidence failed to show that pensioner had deserted his wife within the meaning of said act of March 8, 1899, he is entitled to restoration of all pension money accruing subsequent to the last quarterly payment next preceding February 18, 1901, which may have been with- held from him. Pensioner having delayed for over five months to appeal from the Bureau action of September 6, 1900, he will be held to have waived his right to reimbursement of payments made the wife prior to his appeal, the Bureau having had complete jurisdiction of the claim on the part of the wife and the Bureau error being one of judgment or opinion merely, no error of law, fraud, or mistake of fact being involved. Division — Act of March 3, 1899 — Practice — Appeal. (Elliott ?'. Elliott, MP. D., 472.) The assignments of error in this case are general, not specific, as required by Rule 19 of Practice, which requires that the appeal should briefly, but specifically, state the error of law or fact com- plained of and the grounds relied upon for reversing or modi- fying the Bureau action appealed from. This is a rule of order and convenience based upon the recog- nized right of the appellee to .actual notice of the appeal and information as to the grounds relied upon by the appellant for reversing or modifying the Bureau action. Good practice, as well as justice and fairness to appellees, the Bureau, and this Department, requires a compliance Avith the requirements of said rule in cases arising under the act of March 3, 1899. For noncompliance with said Rule 19 of Practice, requiring PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 259 specific assignments of error, the appeal is, on motion of attor- ney for appellee, dismissed. The defect in the appeal is not cured by the brief in this case. Division of pension — Res judicata — Practice. (Smith ik Smith, 15 P. D., 111.) In contested cases for division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899, the Bureau having jurisdiction thereof, where an issue of fact is joined between the claimant and pensioner the adjudication by the Bureau on said issue should be final, subject to the right of appeal, and in the absence of fraud, error in law, mistake of fact, or newly discovered evidence conclusively settle the question at issue and preclude the claimant from subsequently filing another application under the same law, based upon the same facts. To such cases the doctrine of res ad judicata applies. The duplicate copies of departmental decisions prepared by this Department and transmitted to the Bureau with the decision in cases appealed from Bureau action arising under the first three provisos of the act of March 3, 1899, should be promptly forwarded by the Bureau to the claimant and pensioner or their attorneys. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1809 — Practice — Appeal — Rule 19, (Jackson v. Jackson, 15 P. D., 218.) An assignment of error in an appeal from Bureaii action in a claim for division of pension which merely alleges that " the evidence adduced in this case is not sufficient to establish the appellant's desertion of his wife, either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law," is general and not specific, as required by rule 19 of practice, and unless the defect is waived by the appel- lee and this Department, justifies a dismissal of the appeal. Division of pension — Practice — Appeals — Evidence. (Raymond v. Raymond, 15 P. D., 298.) In view of the unsatisfactory character of the ex parte testi- mony in this case as to the alleged desertion of claimant by pen- sioner and her course of conduct in relation thereto, the papers are returned for a special examination, readjudication, and report. The last paragraph of rule 14 of the Rules of Pra«tice, amended August 6, 1903, was not designed to apply to appeals from Bureau action in cases arising under the first, second, and third provisos of the act of March 3, 1899. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Desertion — Res judi- cata. (Crowley r. Crowley, 15 P. D., 557.) The rule announced in the case of ^Burdette v, Burdette (14 260 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. P. D., 14(5), that "claimant, under the act of March 3, 1899, having submitted her domestic controversy to the courts, is bound by their judicial decree therein,'' is not aj^plicable to judicial decisions in criminal cases where the question involved was crim- inal desertion. The record of acquittal of a defendant in a criminal case is not a defense to an action against him by an individual and can neither be plead nor offered in evidence as a l)ar. It is only such facts as are involved in the issue and essential to the judgment or decree that are deemed legally established and which can not be retried in any subsequent action or pro- ceeding between the same parties. 16. Separation. Desertion — Act of March -i, 1899 — Cohahitatioii — Separation. (Anna C. Fritts v, Curtis M. Fritts, 13 P. D., 24.) Voluntary cohabitation of husband and wife after entering into an agreement for immediate separation operates as a mutual rescission of the agreement. (Bishop on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, vol. 1, par. 1302, and note 3; Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, par. 191, and note 3; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 580; Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall., 31; note to case of Stephenson v. Osborne, 90 Am. Dec, 369.) Desertion — Separation — Eoidence — Act March 3, 1899. (Frances Whitney v. William AV. Whitney, 13 P. D., 301.) The evidence in this case fails to show that pensioner deserted claimant or that she was legally justified in leaving him. Sepa- ration by mutual consent is not desertion. (Harris v. Harris, 12 P. D., 7-12; Coats v. Coats, ibid., 507, and Smith o. Smith, 13 P. D., 177.) 17. Evidence. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Evidence. (Crissey v. Crissey, 14 P. D., 334.) The evidence in this case, filed by pensioner as a basis for reopening of claim, is not newly discovered, but is mainly cumu- lative in character, and the affiants and pensioner testify to a legal conclusion rather than to the facts upon which they base their conclusions. 18. Moral Character. Moral character— Act of March 3^ 1899— Evidence. (Augusta Christopher v. George C. Christopher, 13 P. D., 383.) To entitle a wife to one-half her husband's pension under the act of March 3, 1899, she is required to establish the fact that PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 261 she is a ^Yoman of good moral character by satisfactory affirma- tive proof, and can not rest this branch of her claim upon the legal presumption that '' in the absence of proof to the contrary a person's character is presumed to l)e good." The testimony as to claimant's good moral character is not outweighed by the fact that after the alleged marital desertion claimant, in answer to her advertisement for a position as house- keeper, entered into the service of a man whose wife procured a divorce from him on account of adultery with a previous house- keeper, no immoral act or undue familiarity on the part of claimant being shown during her entire residence with him of over two years. The decree of a court of competent jurisdiction dismissing pen- sioner's bill for divorce on its merits, in conformity with the report of the referee duly appointed to take testimony and re- port, the bill being based on adultery alleged to have been com- mitted by claimant with her said employer during her said residence wath him, is accepted by the Department in this case as satisfactory and conclusive evidence that her relations with her said employer were not adulterous. Division of pension — Marriage — Moral character. (Sarah Post v. Franklin M. Post, 14 P. D., 177.) The mere fact that claimant married a second husband under the belief that her first husband was dead does not justify the rejection of her claim for one-half her first husband's pension upon the ground that she was not a woman of good moral char- acter, even though her belief was not well founded. Division of pension — Act of Marchc 3, J 899 — Special examina- tion — Construction. (Nutt v. Nutt, 14 P. D., 338.) The evidence in this case fails to establish the fact that claim- ant was, at the date of filing her application, a woman of good moral character. Good moral character is established, prima facie, by proof of good reputation by witnesses who know the general reputation of the claimant, but this prima facie proof is outweighed by proof of acts of such immorality as are wholly inconsistent with good moral character, and when such acts took place prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1899, the question as to whether the testimony is too remote is one of discretion. The act of March 3, 1899, is in no sense a penal statute, yet in ascertaining the beneficiaries under the grant of one-half of a pension which has been allowed, the act is strictly construed. Neither the beneficiaries under said act of March 3, 1899, nor the pensioners are entitled, as a legal right, to a special examina- 262 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. tioji, but when a special examination is ordered in a claim under the act, both j^arties or their attorneys are entitled to due notice thereof, unless the examination is directed through the criminal section of the Bureau, ©r for the purpose of securing evidence on which to base or prosecute a civil or criminal case. Division of pension — Moral character. (Munier /;. Munier, 15 P. D, 21.) A woman who is show^n to be addicted to the immoderate use of intoxicating liquor and profane language, and guilty of cruelty and abuse of pensioner and his two minor children, is not of good moral character within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. Division of pensions — Act of March 3, 1899 — Moral character — Practice — Credibility — Evidence. (Humbert /'. Humbert, 15 P. D., 123.) Pensioner's contention that his wife is not of good moral char- acter is not sustained by the evidence. The regulations require that the officer who takes the depo- sition of witnesses must certify as to his knowledge of the credi- bility of the witnesses, and must state how^ such knowledge was obtained. The testimony of witnesses whose credibility is thus certified is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of witnesses whose credibility is not certified, unless their credibility is other- wise ascertained or established. Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899 — Moral character — Remarriage. (Bartoo v. Bartoo, 15 P. D., 136.) The mere fact that claimant married her second and third husband during the lifetime of her first husband, under the belief .that she w^as legally competent to contract a second and third marriage, does not justify the rejection of her claim for one-half her first husband's pension upon the ground that she was not a woman of good moral character. Claimant has failed to show that she is the lawful wife of pen- sioner by establishing the illegality of her subsequent marriages. 19. Naval Home. Division of pension — Limitation — Navy pension — Naval Home — Act March 3, 1899. (Williams v. Williams, 14 P. D., 1.) There is no authority under the act of March 3, 1899, for divid- ing the money benefits granted by act of March 2, 1867 (sec. 4756, Revised Statutes) , and allowing or paying one-half thereof to the wife of a sailor, on the ground that he is an inmate of the Naval Home, at Philadelphia. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 263 20. Estoppel. Division of pension — Divorce — Estoppel. (Frederick v. Frederick, 15 P. D., 38.) Claimant having submitted her domestic controversy with her husband to a court of competent jurisdiction, she is barred by the judicial decree granting him a divorce on the ground of her desertion. Claimant having entered her appearance by her attorney in the suit on the part of her husband for a divorce, she is estopped to deny jurisdiction of the court rendering the decree in said suit because of lack of service of notice upon her. If, as contended by claimant, her husband procured his decree by false and fraudulent testimony, her remedy is by application to said court to set aside the decree. Where both parties are living and the courts are open to them, they should test the validity or invalidity of a decree of divorce where the divorce was procured, or impeach its validity by proper proceedings in another court. Division of pension — Act of March S^ 1899 — Soldiers^ Home — Mar- riage — Estoppel. (Curtis v. Curtis, 15 P. D,, 143.) Appellant's contentions that the act of March 3, 1899, under which the application was made in this case, does not apply to him because he is not an inmate of a Soldiers' Home, and that the evidence fails to show that claimant is the wife of pensioner, are not sustained by the evidence in the case. The " agreement for companionship " alleged to have been en- tered into between pensioner and claimant is not a marriage con- tract and created no marital liability, but the subsequent course of conduct of the parties, their cohabitation as husband and wife in the State of Ohio, and pensioner's recognition of claimant as his wife estop him to deny that claimant is his lawful wife for the purpose of escaping his legal liability as her husband to con- tribute to her support, he having subsequently deserted her. DOMICILE. See Decree of Nullity: No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Division of Pension: No. 8 (12 P. D., 412; 14 P. D., 479; 15 P. D., 14). See Marriage: No. 9 (15 P. D., 308) ; No. 11 (15 P. D., 392, 459). DOUBLE PENSION. See Reimbursement : No. 1 (10 P. D., 84). See Restoration : No. 2 (13 P. D., 378). Double pensions. — Special act. (Emma A. Porch, widow, 9 P. D., 420.) This appellant is now in receipt of a pension of $20 per month, 264 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. granted to her personally by a special act of Congress in recogni- tion of services rendered by her individnally to the Government during the war of the rebellion. She seeks, in addition thereto, a pension as widow of the deceased soldier under the general pro- visions of section 4702, Revised Statutes. The granting or pay- ment of such pension* to her is expressly and positively prohibited by the provisions of section 5 of the act of July 25, 1882, so long as she is in receipt of pension under said special act. DRAFTED MAN. See Service : Nos. 7, 8 (9 P. D., 158, 292, 300 ; 12 P. D., 273 ; 14 P. D., 03; 15 P. D., 232) ; No. 22 (15 P. D., 548). DRAFTED MAN AND SUBSTITUTE. See Sebvice : No. 8 (9 P. D., 158, 162, 305 ; 12 P. D., 273 ; 14 P. D., 63). DROPPING. DURESS. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 1 (9 P. D., 324); No. 2 (9 P. D., 62, 116, 327) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 286) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 48). See Desertion : No. 3 (11 P. D., 362). See Notice: No. 1 (9 P. D., 50). See Origin: No. 3 (13 P. D., 1). See Practice: No. 12 (11 P. D., 13). See Restoration : Nos, 2, 3 (14 P. D., 106, 128, 194; 13 P. D., 392; No. 5 (15 P. D., 475). See Service: Nos. 4, 13 (15 P. D., 158; 9 P. D., 15). See Helpless Minor: No. 3 (15 P. D., 478). See Disloyalty: Nos. 5, 7 (11 P. D., 290; 12 P. D., 12). See Marriage: No. 4 (12 P. D., 434). ELECTION. See Attorneys: No. 19 (14 P. D., 269). See Dependent Parents: No. 2 (10 P. D., 78; 11 P. D., 171, 247; 15 P. D., 18, 100, 106, 194). See Rate and Rating : No. 8 (12 P. D., 331). Election — Practice — Notice. (Joseph Muckenstorm, 10 P. D., 61.) Claimant being in receipt of a pension under the act of June 27, 1890, his claim under the general law having been subse- quently admitted, it was finally rejected on the ground of no benefit, and claimant w^as notified of such rejection, but not of the fact that it had been admitted on its merits. Held: Section 4715 vests the right of election in the pensioner alone, and said right is not lost, limited, or qualified by the opin- ion of any other person as to whether or not a payment under the general law would be beneficial. The latter part of the first pro- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ^ 265 viso of section 2, act of June 27, 1890, expressely reserves the right of one entitled to the benefit of said act to receive his pension under the general law, if his claim under such law is proved. It is for the pensioner, under such circumstances, to make election, and he should be notified of the right to do so, issue of certificate under the general law being withheld until choice is made by claimant. ELLET'S RAM FLEET. See Evidence: No. 4 (9 P. D., 237). EMANCIPATION. See Marriage: No. 15 (10 P. D., 36; 11 P. D., 443). EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. See Dependent Parents: No. 1 (10 P. D., 104). ENLISTMENT. See Desertion: No. 5 (9 P. D., 488; 11 P. D., 193; 12 P. D., 137). See Service: Nos. 7, 8, 20 (10 P. D., 169; 9 P. D., 305; 12 P. D., 500; 13 P. D., 41; 14 P. D., 249). ENGAGED IN ATHLETIC SPORTS. See Line of Duty: No. 3 (10 P. D., 217). EPILEPSY. See Contributory Negligence: No. 1 (10 P. D., 101). See Death Cause : No. 6 (14 P. D., .300). ERYSIPELAS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 5 (12 P. D., 491). ESTOPPEL. References. See Adulterous Cohabitation : No. 8 (15 P. D., 48). See Desertion : No. 4(g) (15 P. D., 8). See Divorce: Nos. 6, 10 (14 P. D., 438; 15 P. D., .553). See Division of Pension : Nos. 13, 20 (15 P. D., 38, 143, 246). See Evidence: No. 8 (10 P. D., 80). See Fee: No. 20 (13 P. D., 25). See Practice: No. 1 (15 P. D., 96). Index. 1. As to former sworn statements. 2. As to a void marriage. .3. As to a common-law marriage. 4. As to remarriage. 266 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1. As to Former Sworn Statements. Estoppel — Marriaye — Evidence. (William M. Covert, 11 P. D., 195.) Claimant herein swore, in 1864, that soldier was married to one Sarah Hutchinson, and that she was present at the ceremony. By reason of such statement the Government granted pension to said Sarah and paid it to her during her lifetime, and there- after to her children during their pensionable minority. Held: Claimant is estopped from now setting up the fact that she, and not Sarah, was the wife. 2. As to a Void Marriage. Marriage — Void marriage — Estoppel, (Phebe Ann Coburn, now Robbins, alleged widow, 11 P. D., 403.) The claimant is shown to have separated from the soldier shortly after his return from the Army, and in 1866 (while the soldier was still living) married one A. J. Pebbles, with whom she lived until he abandoned her in 1880. The soldier died in 1871. She alleged that she had heard that the soldier was dead before she married Pebbles, but learned that he was alive some time afterwards — about a year before his death. Held: That by her marriage to Pebbles in 1866 and subsequent conduct she is estopped from claiming pension as the widow of the soldier. 3. As to a Common-Law Marriage. Marriage — Estoppel — Conduct — Reputation, ( Jennette Thomp- son, widow, 14 P. D., 469.) A claimant who has for years sustained toward a man a de facto relation of marriage, claiming and professing to be his wife, acting as such, and has been so acknowledged by him and accepted by the public generally, is estopped from establishing a pensionable status by denying there was any marriage between them. 4. As to Remarriage. Adidterous cohahitation — Act of August 7, 1882 — Minors— Estop- pel — Restoration, (Eliza Matson, widow, 15 P. D., 47.) Claimant having by her conduct induced the Bureau of Pen- sions to act upon the assumption that she had remarried and to grant pension to her minor child, who drew pension from Octo- ber 8, 1867, to June 14, 1880, she is equitably estopped from claim- ing pension in her own right during the period the minor child drew pension, notwithstanding she was not legally married. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 267 EVIDENCE. References. See Ahanuonment (7 l\ L)., 437; 8 P. D., 42). See Accrued Pension : No. 8 (13 P. D., 181) ; No. 10 (14 P. D., 104). See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 1 (9 P. D., 324) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 28()) ; No. 5 (13 P. D., 357; 14 P. D., 84, 219) ; No. 6 (14 P. D., 242) ; No. (15 P. D., 96). See Aid and Attendance: No. 3 (11 P. D., 473). See Appeals: No. 6 (13 P. D., 170). See Attorneys : No. 6 (9 P. D., 471 ; 15 P. D., 163) ; No. 8 (10 P. D., 4(50) ; No. 11 (12 P. D.. 221). See Death Cause: No. 2 (9 P. D., 113, 129, 266) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 453) ; No. 5 (11 P. D., 388) ; No. 7 (12 P. D., 89) ; No. 9 (12 P. D., 459) ; No. 14 (13 P. D., 342). See Decree of Nullity : No. 5 (14 P. D., 290). See Declarations : Nos. 2, 6 (9 P. D., 223 ; 11 P. D., 420). See Dependent Parents : Nos. 4, 5 (12 P. D., 129, 361 ; 13 P. D., 241 ; 14 P. D., 267; 9 P. D., 287). See Dependent Widow: No. 4 (15 P. D., 203). See Desertion : No. 4 (b) (14 P. D., 375) ; No. 4 (f) (15 P. D., 437). See Disloyalty : Nos. 2, 5, 6, 10 (10 P. D., 86; 11 P. D., 124, 136, .327; 12 P. D., 45; 14 P. D., 104). See Disability : No. 2 (9 P. D., 47; 10 P. D., 276). See Divorce: Nos. 1, 2, 5 (10 P. D., 311, 348; 13 P. D., 68; 14 P. D., 438, 535). See Division of Pension : Nos. 1, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 (11 P. D., 377 ; 13 P. D., 142, 180 ; 14 P. D., 159, 479 ; 15 P. D., 14 ; 13 P. D., 120, 218, 297, 347 ; 13 P. D., 205, 233 ; 14 P. D., 385 ; 13 P. D., 424 ; 14 P. D., 234 ; 15 P. D., 298 ; 13 P. D., 301 ; 14 P. D., 334 ; 13 P. D., 383; 15 P. D., 123). See Estoppel: No. 1 (11 P. D., 195). See Fee: No. 15 (11 P. D., 215). Sese Fraud and Mistake: Nos. 2, 3 (11 P. D., 200, 308). See Identity: No. 2 (15 P. D., 371). See Increase: No. 10 (11 P. D., 51). See Legitimacy: Nos. 4, 5, 8 (12 P. D., 102; 13 P. D., 541; 15 P. D., 386). See Line of Duty: Nos. 5, 8, 11, 15 (10 P. D., 345; 11 P. D., 191, 84, 516; 14 P. D., 518). See Marriage: No. 1 (10 P. D., 446; 12 P. D., 296; 14 P. D., 17, 43) ; No. 2 (a) (13 P. D., 234) ; No. 2 (b) (15 P. D., 223) ; No. 2 (d) (11 P. D., 144; 15 P. D., 103) ; No. 2(f) (14 P. D., 355) ; No. 2(k) (15 P. D., 186) ; No. 2 (1) (13 P. D., 333; 15 P. D., 229) ; No. 2 (o) (13 P. D., 264) ; No. 2 (p) (11 P. D., 339) ; No. 2 (q) (14 P. D., 349) ; No. 2(r) (10 P. D., 304. 431 ; 13 P. D., 49 ; 14 P. D., 530) ; No. 2 (s) (14 P. D., 456) ; No. 2 (t) (14 P. D., 417, 554; 15 P. D., 240) ; No. 2 (u) (15 P. D., 2.36) ; No. 2 (w) (15 P. D., 86) ; No. . 2 (y) (15 P. D., 211) ; No. 2 (z) (13 P. D., 213) ; No. 2 (aa) (13 P. D., 403) ; No. 2 (bb) (11 P. D., 212; 14 P. D., 365; 15 P. D., 208, 413) ; No. 2 (ff) (11 P. D., 427) ; No. 2 (gg) (14 P. D., 212) ; No. 2 (ii) (15 P. D., 540) ; No. 2 (kk) (10 P. D., 328; 12 P. D., 514) ; No. 2 (11) (15 P. D., 399) ; No. 2 (oo) (13 P. D., 146) ; No. 3 (a) (10 P. D., 294; 11 P. D., 320) ; No. 3 (b) (10 P. D., 297; 12 268 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. P. D., 312, 417) ; No. 8 (c) (10 P. D., 423; 11 P. D.. 139, 158; 12 P. D., 182, 333) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 5(X) ; 10 P. D., 393, 409 ; 11 P. D., 204 ; 12 P. D., 134, 434; 13 P. D., 90, 272, 402; 14 P. D., 21) ; No. (J (13 P. D., m) ; No. 11 (12 P. D., 517; 15 P. D., 392) ; No. 12 (9 P. D., 243 ; 11 P. D., 43, 234 ; 12 P. D., 32, 278, 348 ; 14 P. D., 442) ; No. 13 (11 P. D., G6, 131; 14 P. D., 497) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 36; 11 P. D., 181 ; 13 P. D., 173; 14 P. D., 156, 288, 436, 491. 537 ; 15 P. D., 30) ; No. 2 (r) (15 P. D., 464) ; No. 2 (e) (15 P. D.. 493) ; No. 2 (gg) (15 P. D., 495) ; No. 15 (15 P. D., 30, 503). See Minors: No. 5 (12 P. D., 512). See Pathological Sequence; Nos. 1, 14, 15, 24 (12 P. D., 425; 13 P. D., 307; 13 P. D., 112; 13 P. D., 222). See Practice : Nos 21, 22 (13 P. D., 203, 299). See Prior Soundness: No. 1 (15 P. D., 1). See Rate and Rating : No. 8, 9 (13 P. D., 362 ; 15 P. D., 262). See Reimbursement : No. 4 (12 P. D., 894). See Rerating : No. 5 (11 P: D., 299). See Res Judicata: No. 2 (12 P. D., 179). See Restoration : No. 2 (14 P. D., 411) ; No. 6 (15 P. D., 483). See Service: Nos. 3, 4, 8, 22, 25, 28 (14 P. D., 298, 408; 15 P. D., 44, 51, 396 ; 14 P D., 357, 63 ; 13 P. D., 2,30, 288 ; 14 P. D., 388). See Vicious Habits : No. 1 (9 P. D., 252). Index. 1. Burden of proof. 2. Disability. 3. Disloyalty. 4. Incurrence. 5. Identity. 6. New disability. 7. Record, sufficiency of. 8. Elstoppel. 9. Mm*riage, presumption as to. 10. Death, presumption as to. 11. Notice, how proved. 12. Of family physician versus opinion of medical referee. 13. Prior service, presumption as to. 14. Prior soundness, presumption as to. 15. Record, rebuttal of. 16. Vicious habits, presumption as to. 17. Specialist. 1. Burden of Proof. Evidence — Special examinatioii — Burden of proof. (John E. Neary, 13 P. D., 437.) The evidence in this case does not conform to the requirements as to the character and quantity of proof necessary to establish claims of this class. As it does not appear from the evidence that the claim is a meritorious one, or reasonably probable that testimony could be obtained to legally establish its merits, such a prima facie case as contemplated by \he rules of the Bureau, which have been PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 269 approved by the Secretary of the Interior, governing special examinations has not been presented. The enactments of Congress relating to special examinations conferred no new rights upon applicants for pension, nor do they in any manner shift from them the burden of legally estab- lishing their claims. 2. Disability. Increase — Certificates of medical examinations. (Robert W. Mat- thews, 9 P. D., 333.) Inasmuch as the evidence on file, including the last two certifi- cates of medical examination, is unsatisfactorv as to the decree of disability existing at the date of said examinations, on account of pensioned causes alone, a special examination is deemed advis- able, for which purpose the papers in the case are remanded. 3. Disloyalty. Evidence — Practice — Disloyalty. (John N. McCollum, 9 P. D., 150.) This claim, having been adjudicated and rejected upon insuf- ficient evidence, is remanded for reopening and read judication under instructions. 4. Incurrence. Evidence — Incurrence — Ellefs ram fleet. (Noah Perry, 9 P. D., 237.) Appellant claims pension for disability from being scalded with hot water and steam while serving on the ram Lancaster in an engagement with the Confederate ram Arkansas. There is no record of incurrence of said disabling cause, of service on the Lancaster., nor of the Lancaster herself ; but it is an accepted his- torical fact that said ram was disabled in July, 1862, by the ram Arkansas, and that many of her men were scalded ; and it is shown that appellant served on said ram and was injured in line of duty as alleged, but the evidence of the existence and continu- ance since his discharge of any permanent disabling effects of said injury not being satisfactorily shown the case is returned for a special examination. Eoidence^ sufficiency of — Incurrence. (George W. Warren, 9 P. D., 392.) Appellant's allegation that he incurred sunstroke, or heart prostration, in August, 1862, while on a forced march with his command between Tullahoma and Manchester, Tenn., is fully sustained by the affidavits of three reputable comrades, who are shown by the record to have been present with their command and the claimant at the time and place alleged, and who, in cor- 270 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. respondence with the Bureau, fully adhere to and sustain the statements made in their affidavits. Held: That no reason appearing for discrediting their testi- mony, it is deemed sufficient to show incurrence of the disability alleged in the service and line of duty. Evidence — Incurrence. (M. R. William Grebe, 10 P. D., 92.) Appellant alleged that by reason of his horse falling upon him he sustained a hernia and injury to ankle and privates. The evidence submitted, which has been accepted as sufficient to show incurrence of hernia, shows as satisfactorily the incurrence of the other named results of said fall, and will be accepted to estab- lish the claim on account of same. 5. Identity. Evidence — Identity. (Christopher Columbus Yancey, 9 P. D., 185.) One witness, in the absence of a record, Avhose statement is in- consistent with claimant's allegations, is insufficient to establish the incurrence of an injury on board of the Naumkeag^ as alleged. Furthermore, the record shows that the Christopher Columbus who served on said vessel was at date of enlistment, December 12, 1864, 19 years old, 5 feet 5 J inches tall, and by occupation a soldier ; while claimant is shown to be 6 feet 3 inches tall, swears that he never was a soldier, and that in 1896 he was 40 years old. 6. New Disability. Evidence — New disability. (Shadrick Lee, 9 P. D., 214.) Whenever, in a claim for increase under the general law, an applicant, after long and unexplained silence, alleges a new dis- ability of wdiich there is neither record nor medical evidence, the adverse presumption arising from the absence of such evidence may be rebutted, but can be overcome only by direct and positive proof of incurrence and existence, or by satisfactory evidence as to facts and circumstances from which such incurrence and existence may be naturally, fairly, and reasonably inferred. (See case of Thomas H. Strange, 7 P. D., 36.) Evidence — New disability. (Mathias M. Bruner, 10 P. D., 46.) The rule announced in the case of Thomas H. Strange (7 P. D., 36) that " whenever, in a claim for increase of pension under the general law, an applicant, after long and unexplained silence, alleges a new disability of which there is neither record nor med- ical evidence, the adverse presumption arising from the absence of such evidence is open to rebuttal by the testimony of officers, comrades, and neighbors; but such presumption is not out- weighed by the mere recital, under oath, of assertions mad^ long since by the soldier himself or by general and vague statements PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 271 of witnesses, and can be overcome only by direct and positive proof of incurrence and existence, or by satisfactory evidence as to facts and circumstances from which said incurrence is to be naturally, fairly, and reasonably inferred,'' appears to be well founded, and its proper application can work no injustice to either the claimant or the Government. 7. Record, Sufficiency of. Evidence — Record — Certi-ficate of disahility. (Daniel M. Delo, 10 P. D., 319.) A record made at the time of the soldier's discharge, by the surgeon who recommended his discharge, showing that the dis- ability was incurred about the time he alleges and " whilst in the performance of his duty," is accepted as sufficient evidence of incurrence in line of duty, there being nothing in the case, after a special examination, tending to discredit such record, and no other evidence being obtainable. Evidence — Surgeon\s certificate — Record — Presumptions. (C. R. Beardslee, alias Charles B. Barclay, 12 P. D., 264.) A statement in a certificate of discharge that the disabling cause on account of which the soldier was discharged existed prior to enlistment outweighs and rebuts the presumption of prior soundness (Isaac Williamson, 1 P. D., 7). Evidence — Record — Certificate of disability. (Thomas F. Gard- ner, 13 P. D., 84.) Ajipellant was discharged from the service on a surgeon's certificate of disability Avhich recited that he was " incapable of performing the duties of a soldier because of a fracture of the carpal bones of right hand, preventing the free use of the same. Injury was received July 15, at Alexandria, when getting on a railway train, the said private being on duty at the time." Held: That the presumption is that the surgeon who made the certificate secured his information from reliable sources. His duty was to make a true record of the facts recited in it. The presumption that he performed his full duty in that regard is so strong that it is not overcome by mere probabilities. Evidence — Record of the War Department — Opinion evidence. (Catherine Parcell, widow, 13 P. D., 450.) Soldier was formally discharged by the customary certificate of discharge after a service of more than five months, as shown by the records of the War Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it will be presumed that he served ninety days or more, " actual service," in the war of the rebellion. The widow is therefore pensionable. 272 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. The conclusion, determination, or opinion of an officer of any other Department, based upon evidence not before this Depart- ment, is not competent evidence to be considered in the deter- mination of the case. 8. Estoppel. Evidence — Record — Admissions — Estoppels. (Edmund R. Xew- hard, 10 P. D., 80.) The record, based on claimant's own statement in writing, shows that the disability alleged, disease of heart, existed i^rior to his enlistment; claimant can not contradict this record, even though his statement be false. (Case of John H. Ruhl, 8 P. D., 351.) Evidence — Certificate of disahility. (John Schubert, deceased, 10 P. D., 196.) The statement of the claimant's captain in a certificate of dis- ability, made in the regular discharge of his official duty, as to the origin of the disability for which pension is claimed, is not overcome by his contrary statement made from memory eight or nine years afterwards. 9. Marriage, Presumption as to. E oidence — Burden of proof — Presumptions — Marriage. ( August a M. Koschwitz, widow (11 P. D., 102). There being nothing whatever in the evidence tending to show this soldier was ever married prior to his formal marriage to claimant in 1886, at which time he was 66 years of age, and the testimony showing that from the time of his discharge from serv- ice in 1864 until such marriage he was always considered a single man, her marriage to the soldier must be presumed to have been valid, and the burden of proof of its invalidity is upon the Government. 10. Death, Presumption as to. Presumptioh, of death — Act March IS., 1896. (Matilda L. Kelly, widow, 9 P. D., 201.) The evidence in this case satisfactorily establishes the con- tinued and unexplained absence of the above-named soldier from his home and family since November, 1877, since which date no intelligence of his existence has been received, and, therefore, his death should be considered '' as sufficiently proved," in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 13, 1896. Evidence — Presumption of death. (Susan Kelly, widow, 9 P. D., 418.) Soldier was seen in Denver, Colo., about four years after he PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 273 abandoned his home and family in Ohio by an acquaintance, whom he told that he had a wife in Ohio with whom he had some difficulty, and that he wanted to go aw^ay from her. Held: That his absence from his home and family for more than seven years is not unexplained so that his death may be presumed under the act of March 13, 1896. Evidence — Presumption of death. — (Helen L. Pepper, widow, 9 P. D., 500.) 1. The death of the husband can not be presumed from the fact that he deserted his wife, howsoever long said desertion may continue. 2. The act of March 3, 1890, relates only to presumption of death of the enlisted man or officer on account of whose service and death pension is claimed. Evidence — PveHumptions — Death. (Sophia Pearson, widow, 10 V. D., 6.) The soldier deserted claimant in New York in 1846 and went to Missouri, where he married another woman, from whom he separated after a few years, and shortly afterwards left there and has not been heard from since. He is now, if living, about 82 years of age. Held: That the facts do not warrant a presumption of death, as soldier's absence is not unexplained. Evidence — Presnmption of death — Marriage. (Priscilla Childers, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 51.) The statute of Kentucky relative to presumption of death applies only where the absent person shall have gone from the State and does not return to the State for seven successive years, and there being no evidence in this case that claimant's first hus- band ever left the State, his death can not be presumed, and her marriage to the soldier w^as, therefore, null and void. Evidence — Presumption of death — Act March 13, 1896. (Mary E. Burke, alleged widow, 11 P. D., 197.) The soldier abandoned his family in 1882 in the city of Phila- delphia, Pa., without any Avarning or previous intimation of his purpose, and remained in said city for two years thereafter with- out communicating with his wife, his mother, or other relatives. Held: That his absence from his home and family is not unex- l)lained, and that there is no reason for presuming his death. Evidence — Presumption of death — Accrued pension. (Mary J. Schrater, widow, 11 P. D., 501.) The date of the soldier's death being material in a claim by an alleged widow for his accrued pension, it must be satisfactorily 13070—06 18 274 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. established by distinct proof, and may not be established by general presumption merely, under the rule as to presumption of death from seven years' unexplained absence. (Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S., 628.) Evidence — Presumption of death — Act March 13, 1896. (Mary L. Reese, alleged widow, 12 P. D., 111.) As appellant's husband (the soldier) had not been absent unheard of for seven years next preceding the filing of her claim for pension, and no evidence tending to show his death prior thereto having been furnished, she can not be held to be said soldier's widow and entitled to pension on account of his service and death. 10. Death, Presumption as to. Death — Evidence — Presumption. (Annie Lynch, widow, 13 P. D., 54.) To warrant the presumption of death of a soldier in a pension claim it is not necessary to show the " unexplained absence of such enlisted man from his home and family," as provided in the act of March 13, 1896, but proof that he has not been heai-d of for seven years by those (if any) who, if he had been alive, would naturally have heard of him is sufficient to warrant the presumption of his death, unless the circumstances of the case are such as to account for his not being heard of without assum- ing his death. (Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S., 628.) In this case, while there were reasons why soldier did not com- municate with his wife, yet he was in correspondence with his brothers and sister until 1874, when it is supposed he was killed on a railroad, and promised to write again, but never did, and these facts bring the case within the common-law rule of pre- sumption of death as stated in Davie v. Briggs. Death — Evidence — Presumption — Act of June 27 \ 1890. (Johanna Showery, widow, 15 P. D., 41.) In New Jersey death of a person will be presumed or held to be proven, under the statute of that State relative to presumption of death, unless all reasonable doubts of the person being alive within seven years from the date he or she was last known to be living are removed. Held: There is no such presumption or proof, under the evi- dence herein, as to the death of this soldier's first wife, and she must be held to have been alive at the time of his marriage to claimant, which was consequently void, and claimant is not his widow. I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 25^5 Evidence — Sufficiency of — Circumstantial evidence. ( Sybilla Heinz, widow, 10 P. D., 289.) Soldier, after repeated failures to obtain work, both mentally and physically enfeebled by a w^asting and incurable disease, with starvation staring him in the face, his wife dangerously ill in a public hospital, and with no prospect or hope of relief in the immediate future, declared his intention to take his life and thus put an end to his misery in this world. Immediately thereafter, on July 22, 1887, he disappeared, and although it was not absolutely or positively known, it was universally accepted and believed as a fact by all conversant with the cir- cumstances at the time, that he had thrown himself into the Mississippi River and was drowned. These facts were accepted by the Bureau of Pensions as sufficient to raise the presumption of the fact of soldier's death under the provisions of the act of March 13, 1896, but not sufficient to raise the presumption of death prior to the expiration of seven years after his dis- appearance. It is held that the evidence in this case is sufficient to show the death of soldier on July 22, 1887, and to entitle the widow to pension under the act of June 27, 1890, and March 6, 1896, from the date of filing her first application, September 22, 1890. Evidence — Presumption of death — Act of March 13^ 1896 — Lex domicilii. (Elizabeth Ouslem, formerly Ellsworth, widow, 15P. D., 347.) The act of March 13, 1896, is limited in its application to soldiers and sailors. In the absence of a Federal statute expressly relating thereto, presumption of death, to the extent that it may affect the question as to whether a marriage, whereby a soldier's widow forfeits her pension under the general law, is dissolved, will be indulged according to the lex domicilii. Evidence — Presumption of death — Line of duty — Record of War Department — Missing in action. (Harriet Barnett, mother, 15 P. D., 500.) It is shown by the records of the War Department, and evi- dence of comrades, relatives, and neighbors, that the soldier participated in the battle of Guntown, Miss., June 10, 1864, was officially reported " missing in action " from that date, and has not since been seen or heard from by his family, former friends, or the comrades who have testified in this case. Held: The evidence is sufficient to show soldier's death, in line of duty, on June 10, 1864. 276 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 11. Notice, How Proved. Notice — Appeal — Service — Evidence — Act March 3, 1899, (So- phia M. Loughry *". John Loughry, 11 P. D., 523.) 1. In the absence of proof of service of an appeal and notice thereof, in the absence of a waiver of service by the appellee, such appeal will be dismissed. 2. Due proof of service may be shown by a written acceptance of service by the appellee or her attorney, or a registry return re- ceipt signed by the appellee or her attorney and forwarded by the appellant or his attorney with an affidavit that on a certain day a copy of the appeal or proposed appeal has been mailed in a registered letter, postpaid, to the appellee at a certain named post-office, naming it, and that the card was returned in acknowl- edgment of the receipt of such letter; or an affidavit showing that on a certain day and place a copy of the appeal was person- ally delivered to the appellee or her attorney of record. Notice — Appeal — Evidence — Proof service — Act of March 3, 1899. (Eliza J. Conover v. William Conover, 11 P. D., 524.) An affidavit stating that a copy of the appeal attached thereto had been sent through the mail to the address of the claimant as • given by the Pension Bureau is not due proof of service of the appeal, as the proof should show that the same was mailed by registered letter, and that the return registry receipt attached to such proof was the receipt for the registered letter containing a true, full, and complete copy of said appeal and the notice of appeal. 12. Family Physician versus Medical Referee. • Evidence — Death cause — Attending physician. (Margaret La- lone, widow, 11 P. D., 301.) It is contended in a motion for the reconsideration of depart- mental decision of August 11, 1900, in the case at bar, that the rules laid down in the case of the widow of Charles F. Brown (3 P. D., 92) and in the case of Minnie Shuttleworth (3 P. D., 50), respectively, should govern in this case. Held: That in the rules laid down in the cases cited — to the effect that the medical referee's opinion must " have some evi- dence to support it, and some facts proven upon which to l)ase it," before it can be accepted in preference to " the diagnosis made and the opinion expressed " by the attending physician of a soldier in his last illness as to the actual cause of the latterV death — it w^as not the intention of the Department to place any restrictions upon the official acts of the medical officers of the Bureau which should not equally apply to the medical evidence t I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 277 filed ill such cases, and that inasmuch as no other good or suffi- cient reason is shown why former departmental action in the premises should be receded from the pendmg motion in the case is overruled. 13. Prior Service, Presumption as to. E ride rice — Weight of evidence — Presumption of prior service. (Johanna Dorgan, widow, 11 P. D., 437.) The rejection of the claim on the ground of claimant's inability to prove that the soldier was not in the military or naval service of the United States prior or subsequent to the term of service on which said claim is based, when — The weight of the evidence and reasonable inference from known facts are against the probability that the soldier was in the service at any other time than as stated was error, as the claimant should be given the benefit of any remaining doubt on that point. 14. Prior Soundness, Presumption as to. Evidence — Prior soundness — Reimhursenmnt. (Charles Hebel, 10 P. D.,448.) The record of treatment of this pensioner for diarrhea on one occasion during his first term of service as a private in Company G, Sixth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, in the absence of any evidence whatever of the existence or continuance of said disease during the remainder of his service in said organization, at the date of his discharge therefrom, during the period of two years that intervened betv^^een said service and his second enlistment and muster in as an officer of Company K, One hundred and eighty- sixth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, or at the date of his second enlist- ment, is not alone sufficient to overcome presumption of sound- ness at the date of said second enlistment, or to warrant or justify the action reducing the pension for chronic diarrhea that had been allowed him from date of discharge from his second term of service as of the rank of captain, to the rank and rate of a private, and said action was erroneous. It necessarily follows that the action withholding payment of the pension at present allowed to reimburse the Government for excess of payments made to the pensioner as of the rank of cap- tain was likewise error. Evidence — Presumption — Sufficiency. Andrew Campbell, 12 P. D., 155.) The fact that claimant had an attack of rheumatism while a soldier in the Mexican war does not furnish any just ground for 278 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. concluding that he had said disease at the date of his enlistment in 1862, it having first appeared during his last service in 1864. Prior soundness — Evidence — Tubercle of lung. (Harrison'Mobley, 15 P. D., 345.) The claim is based upon tubercular disease of lungs, alleged as of service origin. The fact that this disease was so far advanced as to warrant a positive diagnosis within about three weeks after enlistment, the claimant not having had any acute illness imme- diately preceding such diagnosis, may be accepted as sufficient proof that it existed before he entered the service. 15. Record, Rebuttal of. Evidence — Record — Statements hy claimant. (Ransom J. Chase, 11 P. D., 483.) The evidence to overcome a positive adverse record, made from statements of a claimant, should be clear and convincing, 16. Vicious Habits, Presumption as to. Evidence — Vicious habits — Presumption. (Benjamin F. Peter- man, 11 P. D., 344.) Vicious habits can not be presumed, in case of an injury, unless there is something concerning the nature or character of the injury which warrants such a presumption, or unless the evidence shows certain facts which are sufficient to raise such a presump- tion. Where neither the nature of the injury nor the evidence ad- duced raises such a presumption, the testimony of two credible witnesses, to the effect that claimant is now a man of good habits, and that they do not believe, and have no reason to believe, that the said injury was due to vicious -habits, will be considered as sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, provided always that the claimant is a man of good repute for veracity, and that he shows that no better evidence is obtainable by him. 17. Specialist. Evidence — Specialist. (William Harris, 9 P. D., 73.) The evidence of a specialist;, he being an agent of the Govern- ment and being required by law (sec. 4744, R. S.) to make his examination thorough and searching, will, when such evi- dence is made the basis of a holding by the medical referee, be ordinarily accepted as against the evidence of claimant's physi- cians. EXAMINING SURGEONS. See Medical Examinations: No 1 (9 P. D., 261.) See Pathological Sequence: No. 20 (11 P. D., 317). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 279 EXAMINATION OF RECORD. See Attorneys : No. 6 (9 P. D., 471 ; 15 P. D., 163). EXECUTION. See Declarations : No. 4 (10 P. D., 292; 11 P. D., 210). EXECUTION OF PAPERS. See Attorneys: No. 10 (13 P. D., 27). See Declarations: ^o. 4 (10 P. D., 268, 292). EXPERTS. See Jurisdiction : No. 1 (11 P. D., 348). FAITHFUL SERVICE. See Desertion : No. 4 (f) (14 P. D., 352, 502 ; 15 P. D., 4.37). FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. See Attorneys: No. 9 (9 P. D., 213, .375; 11 P. D., 25; 13 P. D., 444) ; No. 10 (14 P. D., 273). See Division of Pension: No. 11 (13 P. D., 411). FEE AND MERIT CLAIM. See Practice: No. 14 (11 P. D., 325). FEE. References. See Attorneys : Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20 (9 P. D., 19, 362, 13, 375, 137 ; 10 P. D., 403 ; 11 P. D., 49, 490, 492, 392 ; 12 P. D., 221 ; 14 P. D., 273, 328 ; 15 P. D., 184, 359): See Dependent Parents: No. 2 (11 P. D., 247). See Limitation: No. 3 (10 P. D., 421). Index. 1. In claims for restoration and increase. 2. In cases of motions for reconsideration. 3. In case of rule to show cause. 4. No fund, no fee. 5. One claim, oue fee. 6. Material service must be rendered. 7. Refundment of. 8. Fee agreements in claims for restoration. 9. Attorneyship. 10. Consolidation of claims. 11. Forefeiture. 12. Practice. 13. Forfeiture and appeals. 14. In dependent parents' claims. 15. Material service, presumption as to. 16. Minor's claim, vrhole fee to be paid. 280 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 17. Prima facie case, rerating. 18. Act March 3, 1901. 19. Act January 5, 1893. 20. Disbarred attorney. 21. Limitation — Order 354. 22. Difficulty and trouble. 23. Disloyalty— Joint resolution July 1, 1902. 24. Renewal of pension. 25. Rank. 26. For removing charge of desertion. 1. In Claims for Restoration and Increase. Fee — Restoration and increase. (H. 8. Berlin, attorney; Jacob Young, claimant, 9 P. D., 147.) AVhere a pensioner's name has been dropped from the roll solely because he has been allowed and has accepted pension under some other law, and upon application for restoration and increase of pension under the law under which he was pensioned when his name was dropped, his name is restored to the roll under said law at an increased rate, the sole object in filing such claims being to secure a higher rate of pension and not involving question of title, the attorney prosecuting the same is entitled to a fee of $2 only, the claim being in no sense a claim for restoration but for increase. Fee agreements — Increase — Acts of June 27^ 1890, and March 3, 1891. (John H. Afflerbach, claimant; Lewis Heininger, attor- , ney, 11 P. D., 508.) The fee in a claim for increase under the act of June 27, 1890, regardless of the cause upon which said claim is based, is governed by the fourth proviso of the pension appropriation act of March 3, 1891, and can not exceed $2. 2. In Cases of Motions for Reconsideration. Fee — Practice — Motions for reconsideration. (James F. Rusling, attorney; Henry C. Williams, claimant, 9 P. D., 39.) Under rule 9, Rules of Practice before the Secretary of the Interior, a second motion for reconsideration of a decision adverse to a fee or for recognition will not be considered, and the deci- sions in this case having been adhered to on a former motion to reconsider, this motion is dismissed. 3. In Case of Rule to Show Cause. Fee — Rule to show cause — Act June 27, 1890. (Commissioner of Pensions, 9 P. D., 136.) A fee, not greater than $10, may be allowed to an attorney for services rendered in preparing and filing evidence under a rule to show cause why pensioner's name should not be dropped from the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 281 roll, ill cases under the act of June 27, 1890, but the attorney may not collect the same directly from the claimant or pensioner. 4. No Fund, No Fee. Fee — No fund, no fee. (Dorcus Duggins, claimant; John H. Duf- fie, attorney, 9 P. D., 402.) As the only fee provided by law is to be deducted from the pen- sion, it follows that when the payment of accrued pension is ex- pressly limited to the defrayal of the expenses of a pensioner's last illness and burial there is no fund from which the payment of a fee can be made. (Case of Lawrence H. Davis, dec, 8 P. D., 406.) Fee — No fund. (Annie C. Cashner, widow; W. H. Rosser, attor- ney, 11 P. D., 149.) AVhere there is no fund from which a fee can be paid, action refusing to certify a fee is proper. 5. One Claim, One Fee. Fee — One claim ^ one fee — Increase. (Elizabeth M. Williams, widow, 9 P. D., 117.) \\Tiere a declaration filed in a widow's original claim for pen- sion sets forth that the claimant is entitled to increase on account of helpless condition of a minor child of the soldier, the attorney who is authorized to prosecute said claims by a power of attorney contained in said declaration is not entitled to an additional fee for securing such increase upon the child attaining its six- teenth year. 6. Material Service Must Be Rendered. Fee — Material — Service. (J. B. Cralle & Co., attorneys; John L. Stafford, claimant, 9 P. D., 111.) Where a claim for original pension stands rejected and a dupli- cate declaration is filed resulting in the reopening of the claim the filing thereof is deemed material service. Fee — Attorneyship — Material service. (Joseph Dronant, deceased, claimant; W. W. Dudley, attorney, 10 P. D., 144.) Material evidence filed by an attorney entitled to recognition, at any time before the admission of the claim, though it does not reach the case until after the same is allowed, is such service as may warant the payment of a fee. 7. Refundment of. Fee — Attorneys. (John A. Burgess, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 9 P. D., 170.) As but one fee can be certified on each issue to allow pension 282 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. in a claim, where an attorney refuses to refund a fee which was erroneously paid him, action refusing another fee to the attorney entitled to the one so paid is proper. Fee — Attorneyship — Refundment. (George Aab, deceased, claim- ant; H. D. Phillips, attorney, 9 P. D., 377.) 1. As there is no proper evidence on file of appellant's author- ity to secure the payment of accrued pension in the soldier's claim, he is not entitled to a fee. 2. The Bureau of Pensions has authority to demand the re- fundment of a fee or of any compensation purported to have been paid by a claimant to an attorney for services or expenses in a pension claim where the record show^s a fee has been allowed by the Bureau and paid him when not entitled thereto, or where the receipt of compensation directly or indirectly from the claim- ant for such services or expenses is admitted by the attorney. Fee — Refwmlment — Fraud — Reimbursement. (Milton W. Bailey, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 150.) Where a pension under the act of June 27, 1890, is withheld for the purpose of reimbursing the United States for money paid to a claimant in a fraudulent claim under the general law, payment of fee need not be made until the United States has been reimbursed in full; but if payment of fee is made prior thereto the attorney can not be compelled to refund, if otherwise entitled. Fee — Refundment — Jurisdiction — Fund. (Harvey Harrington, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys; 12 P. D., 109.) As but one fee can be certified on each issue to allow pension in a claim where such fee was erroneously certified and paid to an attorney and he refuses to refund the same, the Commis- sioner can not certify another fee to the attorney entitled to the one so paid, as there is no fund from which such fee may be paid. Fee — Refundment — Fraud. (Thomas Webster, claimant; Joseph H. Hunter, attorney; 12 P. D., 441.) . Where a pension has been fraudulently obtained, the attorney who prosecuted the claim, without knowledge of the fraud, can not be required to refund the fee paid him for his services in securing the pension allowed. The case of P^lizabeth Striggon (8 P. D., 12) is overruled. 8. Fee A^eements in Claims for Restoration. Fee agreements — Restoration. (John R. Gourd, claimant; John L. Springston, attorney; 9 P. D., 355.) Where the Bureau, upon evidence procured by special examina- tion, has approved action for dropping a pensioner's name from PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 283 the roll upon the ground that his disability was not incurred in line of duty, and notice has been given him to show cause why his name should not be dropped, he may i^roperly file a claim for restoration of pension, whether or not his name has been actually dropped from the pension roll. Such a claim is one in which the law directs that valid fee agreements be recognized if filed. Fee — Fee agreements — Case of difficvlty and trouble. (Norman Davis, claimant; C. E. Foote, attorney; 10 P. D., 147.) Proceedings w ere instituted by the Government, which resulted in action by the Bureau in withholding pension to reimburse the Government. Upon appeal, action was reversed and cer- tificate issued to allow payment of pension withheld; on said issue no fee was paid. Fee agreements for $25 were filed. Held: As the Commissioner of Pensions has not ordered that fee agreements be recognized in proceedings like those described, the fee agreements filed applicable to such proceedings in this particular claim should not be recognized. Also, that in the absence of authority to recognize fee agreements in such proceed- ings in claims, such fee shall be certified as the Commissioner may see fit to allow, not exceeding $25 in claims under the general law. Case of George D. Hilton (8 P. D., 182), in so far as it conflicts herewith, is overruled. Fee — Fee agreements — Two claims and two fees. (Demmon S. Decker, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys; 10 P. D., 198.) Attorneys are not bound by fee agreements limited in their application to a claim for increase on account of a new disability to prosecute a claim for straight increase. As the fee agreements filed were expressly limited in their application to the claim for additional pension, the appellants are entitled to the fee stipulated in said agreements for securing the allowance of ajiditional pension, and also to the fee provided by law for securing the allowance of straight increase. 9. Attorneyship. Fee — Attorneyship — Limitation. (James Rose, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 357.) Where a pension claim has been rejected by the Bureau of Pen- sions and its action has been affirmed by the Department, the claim is at an end, and the authority of the attorney is termi- nated. However, it is not necessary for said attorney to obtain a new power of attorney in his favor for the institution of new proceedings, provided the claimant cooperates with him therein, and has not in the meantime authorized another attorney to institute such proceedings. 284 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 10. Consolidation of Claims. Fee — Consolidation of claims. (Dah ya ne Ah Kee la nee gar, claimant; John L. Springston, attorney, 10 P. D., 146.) The several applications for pension (to Avhich a widow may be entitled in her own right) in behalf of the widow and minor children of a soldier on account of his services and death consti- tute but a single claim for pension, and when the .several applica- tions are made through the same attorney but one fee can be paid to him. 11. Forfeiture. Fee — Forfeiture — Increase — Act March 3^ 1891. (Samuel Wilson, claimant; J. B. Cralle & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 412.) An attorney, when entitled to a certain sum as a fee, and his title thereto is conceded by the Bureau at the time when a less sum in lieu thereof is certified to him, does not forfeit his right to the remainder of the fee through his failure to enter a protest to said action of the Bureau in not certifying to him the proper amount. Fee — Forfeiture — Attorneys — Notice. (James Marshall, claim- ant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 12 P. D., 239.) 1. The fact that an attorney makes, contention for a fee for his services in a claim for pension estops him from denying that he has received notice of the allowance of the claim, and that his title to the fee has been denied by the Bureau; and where sub- sequently to making such contention he acquiesces in the adverse action of the Bureau for one year — that is, fails to enter an ap- peal to this Department — he thereby forfeits whatever title he may have had to the fee. 2. When an attorney who contends for a fee on the original issue in a claim under the general law subsequently to said issue files in behalf of the applicant a declaration for " additional pen- sion " in which is recited the fact that the applicant is in receipt of pension under the general law, it is presumed that said attor- ney has received notice of the allowance of the original claim; and where under the foregoing conditions he acquiesces for one year from the date of filing said declaration in the adverse action of the Bureau in refusing to certify to him a fee on the original issue — that is, fails to enter an appeal to this Department within a year — he thereby forfeits whatever title he may have had to the fee. 12. Practice. Fee — Practice. (Miles Gilder, claimant; Fay F. Root, attorney, lOP. D., 167.) ^ I Appellant's claim under the act of June 27, 1890, was allowed PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 285 at the rate of $8 per month from date of filing his claim, Jnly 14, 1890; at the same time his claim under the general law was allowed at $4 per month from eJanuary 13, 1890, but the Bureau of Pensions refused to issue a certificate thereon, as it would not afford claimant any benefit, as the full amount of pension would be required to pay the attorney's fee ($25) in the case. The attorney in the case waived the fee agreements and agreed to receive a fee of $10, and claimant requested the issue of a certificate. Held: That under these conditions the certificate must be issued in the claim under the general law. 13. Forfeiture and Appeals. Fee — Forfeiture — Appeals. (Milton M. Kappleye, claimant; J. W. Morris, attorney, 10 P. D., 464.) AVlien an attorney acquiesces in an action of the Bureau denying him a fee on an issue to allow pension in a claim, for a period of one year from the date he was notified thereof — that is, fails to enter an appeal from said action within the year — he thereby forfeits whatever title he may have to the fee certified on said issue. 14. In Dependent Parents' Claims. Fee — Fee agreemenU — Dependent parents' claims — Section Ji.707^ Rerised Statutes, and act of June 27^ 1890. (Mary Horan, mother, claimant; James F. Rusling, attorney, 11 P. D., 514.) Under the fourth section of the act of June 27, 1890, fee of but $10 can be paid an attorney for services in a claim filed imder any of the provisions of said act ; and the question as to whether a dependent parent's claim was properly granted under the pro- visions of section 1 of said act can not be decided upon appeal as to a question of fee, but the remedy must be sought in an appli- cation to the Commissioner of Pensions for a read judication of a claim and a reissue under the general law" as it existed prior to the passage of the first section of the act of June 27, 1890. 15. Material Service, Presumption as to. Fee — Refundment — Evidence — Presumption. (Edward W. Stephens, claimant; G. W. Mitchell, attorney, 11 P. D., 215.) After the lapse of several years from the date of an action of the Bureau adjudging that an attorney is entitled to a fee, it will be presumed when it appears that said attorney jDerformed the material service necessary to earn a fee, that he observed the rules of practice as regards mere formal service. 286 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 16. Minor's Claim, Whole Fee to be Paid. Fee — Attorneys — Minors' claims — Pro rata fee. (Minors of David G. Miller, claimants; W. W. Dudley, attorney, 11 P. D., 496.) In minor's claim for pension, when, upon issue of certificate to allow pension, payment of the share of one claimant is with- held under the instructions of the Secretary of the Interior dated January 14, 1901, the entire fee of the attorney prose-- cuting the case shall be paid pro rata from the shares of the other claimants' to whom pension is paid upon and at the time of said issue. 17. Prima Facie Case, Eerating. Fee — Attorneyship — Forfeiture — Prima facie case. (Annie E. Meyers, widow, claimant; Milo-B. Stevens & Co., attorneys; 11 P. D.,392.) Where an attorney has prima facie established a claim for pension and no call for additional evidence has been made, he has earned the fee, though subsequently to his death another attorney filed evidence for which the Bureau could have issued a call. Fee — Fee agreements — Berating. (Samuel Bennison, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 11 P. D., 202.) In the absence of valid fee agreements an attorney is entitled to a fee of $10 for his services for the successful prosecution of a claim for rerating. Fee — Rerating rate — Commencement act January J, 1893. ( Reuben Merryman, claimant ; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 13 P. D.. 75.) For services in a claim for rerating under any act an attorney who has been paid a fee for prosecuting a soldier's original claim thereunder is not entitled to an additional fee when the claim for rerating is based upon a right existing at the time said attorney made his contract to prosecute the original claim, it being his duty under said contract to secure for the soldier the correct rate of pension from the proper time. Fee — Rerating^Fund — Act of January J, 1893. (John V. Moore, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 15 P. D., 278.) Claims for rerating are so completely separate and distinct that part payment of fee for the prosecution of one claim by an attorney can not be made from the fund of pension secured by the prosecution of another claim for rerating in behalf of the same claimant. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 287 18. Act of March 3, 1901. Fee — Attorneys — Applications — Act of March 3, 1901. (Frances A. Patterson, as widow of George N. Osier, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 12 P. D., 5.) The act of March 3, 1901, in specific language prohibits any person from receiving compensation for services in making application under its provisions ; and the words " making appli- cation " signify not only the filing of a declaration for pension, but also the filing of evidence showing title to pension. As the question as to whether an attorney or agent may in such a case collect a fee from the claimant is not properly before the Department, the appeal, in so far as the same relates to this point, is dismissed. Fee — Act March S, 1901 — Attorneys. (Frances A. Patterson, widow, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 12 P. D., 29. An attorney can not receive any compensation for the prosecu- tion of a claim for pension under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1901, either directly or indirectly from the claimant, or from any other person. ^ 19. Act of January 5, 1893. Fee — Fee agreements — Act of January 5, 1893. (William H. Jones, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 12 P. D., 525.) 1. The fourth proviso to the pension appropriation act of March 3, 1891, has no application to the amount of fee to be allowed in claims under the act of January 5, 1893, as they are not claims for increase on account of increase of the disability on account of which pension has been allowed. 2. The decision in the case of Daniel Hauenstein (7 P. D., 256) is overruled. 20. Disbarred Attorney. Fee — Disbarred attorney — Estoppel. (Edward S. Murray, claim- ant; H. D. Phillips, attorney, 13 P. D., 25.) When a claimant, pending the disbarment of his attorney of record, employs another attorney who prosecutes the claim to final adjudication, no fee will be certified to the disbarred at- torney upon his restoration to practice, but his disbarment will operate as an estoppel to bar any claim for fee. 21. Limitation — Order 354. Fee — Order 35 J^. — Limitation — Notice. Mary A. Goodman^ claim- ant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 13 P. D., 37.) When in a claim certificate issues to allow pension prior to 288 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. January 15, 1898, the date of the promulgation of order 854 of the Commissioner of Pensions, and more than three years have elapsed from said date before an attorney for the first time since the allowance of the claim directs the attention of the Bureau by calls for status or other method to the consideration of his title to fee on said issue, the Bureau, under said order, may properly refuse to consider his title thereto. Fee — Order No. 851^. — Limitation — Notice. (Hezekiah Miller, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 13 P. D., 39.) When certificate issues to allow pension in a claim subsequently to the date of the promulgation of order No. 354 and more than three years elapse before an attorney interested in the case files a request for fee, the Bureau may properly decline to consider his title thereto. 22. Difficulty and Trouble. Fee — M^idow and minor — Difficulty and trouble. (Mary A. Burns, claimant; James P. L. Weems, attorney, 14 P. D., 199.) In a widow's claim for pension inider the general law a fee in excess of $10 can not be paid an attorney for securing increase on account of a minor child, unless the prosecution of the claim, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Pensions, involves such difficulty and trouble as warrants him to allow a fee in excess of $10, wherein articles of agreement are filed which he approves. 23. Disloyalty-^oint Resolution of July 1, 1902. Fee — Disloyalty — Joint resolution July 7, 1902 — Attorneys — Rec- ognition. (William P. Taylor, claimant; J. B. Cralle & Co., attorneys, 14 P. D., 276.) In claims for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, in which payment of pension has been barred by the provisions of section 4716, Revised Statutes, United States, where an attorney is the first, subsequently to the passage of the joint resolution of Con- gress of July 1, 1902, to cooperate with the claimant in the prose- cution of a case in which he has been properly authorized so to* do, such attorney may have title to the fee. 24. Renewal of Pension. Fee — Renewal of pension — Increase. (Isaac Walker, claimant; Cyrus E. Perkins, attorney, 14 P. D., 256.) A fee in excess of $2 can not be certified to an attorney for his service in securing renewal of pension under the act of June 27, 1890, from date of holding medical examination, at a higher rate than was formerly allowed to the claimant under said act, the necessary service constituting but a claim for increase under th(^ act of June 27, 1890. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 289 25. Rank. Fee — Rank — Rating. (Sarah O. Stockwell, mother; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 428.) A fee in excess of $10 can not be paid in a dependent mother's or any other case under act of June 27, 1890. 26. For Removing Charge of Desertion. Fee — Necessary service — Removal of charge of desertion. (Martin Welsh, claimant; David A. Gourick, attorney, 15 P. D., 318.) Where in the course of the prosecution of a claim for pension it is necessary to secure the removal of a charge of desertion against the claimant, for service in securing such removal the attorney in the claim for pension is not entitled to a special fee, but is restricted in his charges to the amount of fee provided for by the pension laws. FEE AGREEMENTS. See Appeals : No. 4 (11 P. D., 519) . See Attorneys: No. 3 (15 P. D., \M). See Fee: Nos. 1, 8, 14, 17, 19 (11 P. D., 508; 9 P. D., 355; 10 P. D.. 147, 108; 11 P. D., 202, 514; 12 P. D., 525). 1. Minor — Contesting Minor. Fee agreements — Attorneys — Minors. (Minor of Henry Elberson, claimant; James F. Rusling, attorney, 11 P. D., 150.) A claim for pension under the general law in behalf of one as minor child of a soldier, when antagonistic to a claim in behalf of others as minor children of the same soldier to whom the entire pension has been paid, is an original claim for pension within the meaning of the act of July 4, 1884, and when valid fee agreements are filed in such a claim the law directs that they shall be recognized. FIRST GRADE. See Rate and Rating: No. 7 (10 P. D., 443). FILING. See Declarations: No. 6 (11 P. D., 257, 420). FLORIDA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (h), 15 (14 P. D., 383). See Table of State Statutes for 14 P. D. FLORIDA WARS. See Service: No. 3 (15 P. D., 394). 33070—06 19 290 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. FORFEITURE. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 2 (9 P. D., 62, 116, 327) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 286) ; No. 7 (14 P. D., 862) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 48). See Attorneys : Nos. 7, 8, 9, 13 (11 P. D., 392 ; 10 P. D., 460 ; 9 P. D., 213; 11 P. D., 25; 13 P. D., 444; 14 P. D., 172). See Fee : No. 11 (12 P. D., 239) ; No. 13 (10 P. D., 464) ; No. 17 (11 P. D., 392). FOREIGN DIVORCES. See Divorce : No. 7 (12 P. D., 303 ; 14 P. D., 173). FRAUD. See Decree of Nullity : Nos. 2, 4, 7 (10 P. D., 284 ; 13 P. D.. 460 ; 15 P. D., 286) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Divorce : No. 4 (13 P. D., 208, 236) ; No. 10 (15 P. D., 553). See Division of Pension : No. 12 (13 P. D., 347.) See Fee: No. 7 (10 P. D., 150; 12 P. D., 441.) See Jurisdiction : No. 4 (13 P. D., 465.) See Marriage: No. 2 (y) (15 P. D., 211) ; No. 5 (10 P. D., 258). See Practice : No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). See Restoration: No. 5 (15 P. D., 475). FRAUD AND MISTAKE. References. See Reimbursement: Nos. 1, 2. 3, 4 (10 P. D., 84; 11 P. D., 395; 12 P. D., 289, 394; 13 P. D., 13, 201 ; 14 P. D., 152). See Res Judicata: No. 2 (12 P. D., 179). See Restoration : Nos. 2, 4 (14 P. D., 318; 14 P. D., 141) ; No. 6 (15 P. D., 483). Index. 1. Reimbursement 2. Clerical error. 3. Fraud on part of claiiiiant. 4. Section 4720, Revised Statutes. 1. Reimbursement. Fraud and mistake — Reimbursement. (Annie Dempsey, widow, 9 P. D., 149.) The soldier was pensioned for rheumatism and resulting dis- ease of the heart. The widow^ stated in her application that he died of disease contracted in the service and filed a copy of a public record giving the cause of death as " paralysis of the heart," whereupon her claim was allowed. It was subsequently ascertained that the cause of death was inquired into by a coro- ner's jury and found to be the intemperate use of intoxicants and drugs, and her pension was therefore terminated. Held: That the concealment by claimant of the fact that a coroner's inquest was had amounted to fraud and justified PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 291 recovery of the amount paid under the old law from the pension subsequently allowed under the act of June 27, 1890. Fraud and inistake — Reimbursement. (Alexander W. Dees, 9 P. D., 455.) 1. It appearing that the disability of this appellant from dis- ease of eyes can not be attributed to the results of sunstroke in service, and said disease of eyes not being shown by the evidence to have been otherwise due to his military service, the action ter- minating the pension granted him on account thereof, and reject- ing his claim for restoration of the same, was proper and is affirmed, although the ground stated for said action was erroneous. 2. It being shown that the nervous affection of face from Avhich this appelant suffered prior to his enlistment was not a factor in the disability from disease of eyes for which he was first erroneously pensioned, and had no connection therewith, pathologically or otherwise, all basis for a charge of fraud in obtaining said pension is eliminated from this case, the same having been granted not through fraud on his part, or a mistake of fact on the part of the Pension Bureau, but merely as the result of an erroneous judgment on the evidence, and no legal grounds exist for withholding payment of his present pension to reimburse the Government for former payments made to him under his original pension certificate as a result of such erroneous judgment. (Christian May, 8 P. D., 71.) Fraud and mistake — Reimbursement. (Annie Cooke, widow, 12 P. D., 116.) The evidence showing that the appellant made a fraudulent application in 1866, upon which pension was allowed and paid, it is immaterial whether such pension was actually received by her or was (as is alleged) appropriated by her attorney. In either event the Government may reimburse itself by withholding current pension due her. Fraud and mistake — Reimbursement — Restoration. (Camden L. Hill, MP. D., 57.) It appearing from the evidence of the experts that soldier's disease of eyes for which he was pensioned was due to gonor- rheal opthalmia, for which reason his name was dropped from the roll, the rejection of his claim for restoration of pension was proper; but us it does not appear that soldier knew said disease of eyes was due to said cause when he was prosecuting his claim for pension, but had good reason to believe it due to a severe cold, he was not guilty of fraud in obtaining the allowance of said pension, and the action withholding his pension granted 292 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. under the act of June 27, 1890, to reimburse the Government for the money erroneously paid under the general law, was error and is reversed. 2. Clerical Error. Rewihursement — Fraud and mistake — Evidence. (Joseph B. Wilson, 11 P. D., 308.) While it is evident that the allowance which it is proposed to recover w^as due to a clerical error, yet as, from an examination of the evidence, it is doubtful whether the pensioner was not justly entitled to what he received, it is held that recovery by with- holding current pension should not be enforced. 3. Fraud on Part of Claimant. Fraud and mistake — Reimbursement — Evidence. (Sarah M. Decker, widow, 11 P. D., 200.) The evidence obtained by a special investigation having clearly shown that the diseases of which the soldier died existed prior to his enlistment and that the claimant was in a position to know of their existence, it is held that her claim for pension, on the ground that said diseases originated in the service, was fraudu- lent, and that the pension under the act of June 27, 1890, was properly withheld for the purpose of recovering the amount paid upon said claim. 4. Section 4720, Revised Statutes. Fraud — Section 1^720^ Jievised Statutes — Suspension. (Henry E. Van Trees, 13 P. D., 428.) No appeal lies to the Secretary of the Interior from the action of the Commissioner of Pensions suspending j^ayment of pen- sion under the provisions of section 4720 of the Revised Statutes for fraud in procuring a special act until the propriety of repeal- ing such special act can be considered by Congress. FINAL ACTION. See Appeals : No. 2 (9 P. D., 1G4) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 265). See Practice: No. 1 (15 P. D.,'362). FUND. See Fee: No. 4 (9 P. D., 402; 11 P. D., 149) ; No. 5 (9 P. D., 117) ; No. 7 (12 P. D., 109) ; No. 17 (15 P. D., 273). GANGRENE. See Death Cause: No. 8 (12 P. D., 354). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 293 GEORGIA, LAWS OF. See Table of State Statutes for 11 P. D., 229. GOOD FAITH. See Marriage: No. 2 (p) (18 P. D., 08) ; No. 2 (y) (1.5 P. D., 211) . No. 2 (bb) (15 P. D., 208). GILPIN'S BATTALION. See Service: No. 4' (9 P. D., 108). GRAY'S BATTALION. See Commencement: No. 9 (14 P. D., 420). See Increase: No. 7 (14 P. D., 28.5). GRADE RATES. See Rate and Rating : Nos. 0, 11 (11 P. D., 105; 9 P. D., 125). GRANDCHILDREN OF SOLDIER. See Accrued Pension: No. 3 (9 P. D., 393). GUARDIANS. References. k See Accrued Pension: No. 4 (11 P. D., 351). See .Jurisdiction: No. 2 (12 P. D., 147). See Payment of Pension : No. 1 (9 P. D., 197). Index. 1. Payment of pension to. 2. Choice between contesting. 3. May refuse to recognize. 1. Payment of Pension to. Guardians — Payment of pension — Jurisdiction. (Edward W. Moore, 9 P. D., 55.) 1. The words appearing in the act of August 8, 1882, " But the payment to persons laboring under legal disabilities may be made to the guardians of such persons," are not mandatory, but permissive. 2. The pension system now in force, and the whole thereof, in substance and in form of procedure, is without the plane of State control and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States. 3. Pajanent of pension to the guardian of a pensioner under legal disability is not obligatory, and if the Commissioner of Pensions shall become satisfied that the pensioner's interests would be better subserved by payment to the pensioner himself 294 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND (JLAIMS. he may so direct; but until there is evidence warranting the belief that the pensioner is deprived of his rights under the pen- sion laws, by the guardian, and the appointing court will not administer relief, the Commissioner of Pensions will not be war- ranted in refusing payment to such guardian. 2. Choice Between Contesting. Guardianship — Minors — Pension fund. (Calista A. Stombaugh, guardian of minor of Daniel T. Hall, 12 P. D., 1.) Soldier died August 5, 1884, leaving the appellant, his widow, and a minor child, William P., under 16 years of age. The widow, mother of said minor, remarried December 25, 1884. Said minor was born July 29, 1883, and has resided with his uncle, David H. Hall, continuously since he was 16 months old, who was duly appointed his guardian by the district court in the State of Iowa September 5, 1890. October 4, 1890, said guardian filed a claim for pension as such guardian under the act of June 27, 1890, and appellant also filed a claim for pension under said act as mother of said minor January 31, 1891, and was subsequently, September 7, 1891, appointed guardian of said minor by the probate court of Hubbard County, Minn. On January 31, 1899, her said claim was rejected on the following ground : " That the claim for the minor under the act of June 27, 1890, has this day been allowed, and payment ordered to be made to David H. Hall, the guardian, who acquired authority anterior to the filing of this claim or the appointment of Calista A. Stombaugh as guardian." It is held that Hall having been recognized as a fit person to act as agent of the Government to receive and disburse the money of his ward, and he having accepted the agency thus imposed, and nothing appearing in the record showing that he has broken its terms, the Bureau action rejecting appellant's claim for recognition in the claim was without error. Any contest over the right of possession of the minor or his property must be relegated to the local courts for decision. 3. May Eefuse to Eecognize. Jurisdiction — State court — Guardians — Payment, (Charles F. Eussell, 15 P. D., 364.) The decree of a State court making a party a guardian over the estate of an insane person, and of his person when he comes within the jurisdiction of said State, does not give said guardian authority over the person of the said ward if he be without the jurisdiction of said State; neither does it give him authority over the estate of said ward beyond the jurisdiction of the court making the appointment. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 295 GUARDIANSHIP. See Accrued Pension : No. 4 (11 P. D., 351). GUNSHOT WOUND. See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 11, IG, 22 (13 P. D., 107; 14 P. D., 542; 15 P. D., 249). GUNSHOT WOUND AND PARALYSIS AGITANS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 11 (13 P. D., 107). GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE. See Insane Person : No. 3 (15 P. D., 430). HAWKINS TAYLOR COMMISSION. See Service: No. 10 (10 P. D., 270). HEARSAY. See Marriage: No. G (13 P. D., 96). HELPLESS MINOR. References. See Commencement: No. 1 (P. D., 189, 226). Index. 1, Generally. £. Widow's increase on account of. 3. Disability. 4. Special act. 1. Generally. Insane or helpless minor — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Helena, minor of Joseph Cox, 9 P. D., 2(5.) A claimant for pension under the first proviso of section 3, act of June 27, 1890, as a helpless minor, who was over the age of 16 years at the date of the soldier's death, has no pensionable status. Helpless minor — Act June 27^ 1890. (Ellie Morris, widow, 9 P. D., 353.) A child who is an incurable epileptic, having a falling fit once a w^eek, on an average, and nervous attacks much oftener, who is vigorous in body but dull mentally, who is able to attend to his personal wants except when suffering from an epileptic seizure, and can perform some remunerative labor but not nearly suffi- cient to afford him a support, is " permanently helpless " in the contemplation of the law,' and the pension on his account should be continued. Helpless mijior — Act June 27^ 1890. (Minor of William Johnson, 9 P. D., 452.) Claimant is 24 years old, has been since 1885 an inmate of an 296 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. asylum for .feeble-minded persons, does not know her age, is mi- able to comprehend numbers above 5, is capable of receiving only the most elementary instruction, and, in the opinion of the sur- geon detailed to examine her, is permanently incapacitated for earning a living and requires the care and attendance of another person daily. Held: Tliat she is entitled to continuance of pension as claimed. 2. Widow's Increase on Account of. Helpless minor — Act June 27^ 1890 — Widow^s increase. (Frances Stetzell, widow, 9 P. D., 9.) Evidence shows that the child claimed for (for w^hom pension was received till she was 16 years of age) is afflicted with in- curable epilepsy, rendering her liable to frequent spasms and spells of unconsciousness, and w hich has made her weak and of low vitality, so that she can perform only the lightest household duties and no remunerative labor, besides causing her to be the subject of constant watchfulness and of some aid and attendance. Held : That she is permanently helpless in the contemplation of the law, and the pension on her account should be continued. 3. Disability. hisane or helpless minor — Act June 27^ 1890. (Minor of Philip J. Conklin, 10 P. D., 368.) The evidence shows that the claimant, by reason of mental in- firmity, is incapable of the intelligent pursuit of any vocation, or of obtaining remunerative employment. Held: That she has a pensionable status as an insane or help- less minor under the act of June 27, 1890. Helpless minor — Aid and attendance — Act ,of June 27^ 1890 — Minors. (Isabella Cornell, helpless minor, 15 P. D., 407.) As applicant is so disabled physically and mentally as to be practically unable to earn an independent support, and requires daily aid and attendance, she is fairly entitled to continuance of pension as a " permanently helpless " child, under the first pro- viso of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890. Insane or helpless minor — Disability. (Minor of Reuben Alden, lOP. D.,22). Evidence shows that said child has been afflicted from birth by depression of breast bone upon the spine, displacing vital organs, and rendering him extremely nervous and weak to such an extent that he has been mentally and physically unable to care for or support himself. He can not perform effective or remunerative labor and is considered permanently helpless, in the contempla- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 297 tion of the proviso to the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, and entitled to a continuance of his pension after arriving at the age of 16 years. Insane or helpless minors — Act of June ^7, 1890. (Elmer A. Rod- key, helpless minor, 10 P. D., 224.) Claimant is unable to perform any manual labor, can not bear his weight upon the right lower limb, has lateral curvature of the spine, his right arm is atrophied and wasted away, he is slightly idiotic, and is unable to dress and undress himself. Held: That he is so permanently helpless, within the meaning of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, as to be entitled to a continuance of his pension as a minor under the provisions of said act. Helpless minor' — Act June ^7, 1890 — Mental deficiency. (Minor of Myers Horn, 12 P. D., 365.) This child, although sound in body, being so deficient mentally that he can not learn, has no memory, will work only under con- stant direct personal oversight, and will not be employed by anj^- one, even for his board only, is helpless within the meaning of the law. Helpless minor — Act of June ^7, 1890 — Disability. (Freddie J. Toumine, helpless minor, 12 P. D., 527.) The evidence shows that on account of permanent disabilities the minor is unable to perform manual labor and is a charge upon those bound to support him. Held: That the minor is "permanently helpless" within the meaning of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, and entitled to a continuance of his pension as such. Vested right — Act Decennher 21., 1893 — Notice — Dropping — Re- issue — Insane minor. (Nancy E. Sherard, widow, 15 P. D., 478.) 1. Adjudication and admission of a claim, evinced by issue of a certificate and delivery of the same to the claimant, constitutes a grant of pension within the meaning of the act of December 21, 1893. While such pension can not be withheld or suspended with- out due notice as required by said act, yet a certificate erroneously issued and delivered may be canceled, and a new certificate in lieu thereof issued giving effect to the adjudication of the claim, with- out notice under the act of December 21, 1893. But the cancella- tion of a certificate, coupled with a refusal to issue one in lieu thereof on the ground of a reversal of judgment on the merits of the claim, requires notice under said act. Withholding or suspen- sion of pension in this event is the result not of cancellation of the certificate erroneously issued, but a refusal to issue the new certificate. 298 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 2. Insanity of a minor child need not be permanent in its nature to entitle the mother to continuance of pension on that account under the act of June 27, 1890. Pension may be granted to continue " during the period of such disability." On the ad- mitted cessation of the disability pension may be terminated without notice under the act of December 21, 1893. 4. Special Act. Helpless minor — Act June ^7, 1890 — Special act. (Mattie Grazi- ani, widow, 14 P. D., 331.) The claimant's name having been placed on the rolls subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laAv, by special act, she is entitled to the $2 increase provided for in the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, if the minor on whose account claim is made is shown to be helpless. The evidence in the claim making out a j^rima facie case, the papers are returned for special examination and medical examination on the question of the minor's helplessness. (Cert. No. 252980, Mabel belnless child of George W. Ham, Co. A, 2.5th Ind. Inf.) Law Division, January 30, 1905. Respectfully returned to the chief of the Board of Review. The papers in this claim were transmitted to this division for an opinion as to whether '* the pensionable status of the helpless child is in any way abridged or otherwise modified by the fact of her marriage." The papers in the claim show that certificate was originally issued on March 26, 1889, at $17 per month, with $2 additional l^er month for each of three (3) minor children under the age of sixteen years, payments to commence on October 1, 1877, and to continue until the youngest child became sixteen years of age. On Sept. 5, 1890, and Sept. 12, 1894, applications were filed in behalf of the child Mabel praying a continuance of the pen- sion to her under the provisions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, providing for the continuance of pension to a helpless minor child. On due proof of helplessness certificate was renewed by issue of January 9, 1896, to continue during helplessness, and payments at the rate of $17 per month, with $2 additional, have been made since that time to said child. Evidence recently filed shows that the pensioner was married on November 2, 1904. By the first proviso of section three of the act of June 27, 1890, it is enacted that in case " a minor child is insane, idiotic, or otherwise permanently helpless, the pension shall continue during the life of said child or during the period of such dis- ability." PENSIOK AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 299 As has be.en held by the Commissioner of Pensions, under date of September 14, 1904, in the case of Daisy D. Mcintosh, help- less child of James D. Mcintosh, cert. No. 467268, there are three (3) conditions under which a minor child may be entitled to a continuance of pension under the proviso just quoted: First. Wiere the child is disabled by insanity. Second. Where it is an idiot. Third. Where it is in a state of '' permanent helplessness, which is a disability dependent upon the facts of the case." The Commissioner further decided that '' When either of the three disabilities have ceased to exist, the pension ceases. * * * The question of permanent helplessness is a physical question and not a matter of dollars and cents," Inasmuch as the statute, in conferring title upon a class of children who are insane, idiotic, or otherwise permanently help- less, does not take into regard the social status of such child, it is apparent that the marriage of a minor child who belongs to one of the three classes mentioned does not, of itself, operate to terminate the pension, any more than the marriage of a minor child under the age of sixteen years and not insane, idiotic, or otherwise permanently helpless acts as a bar to the payment of pension until such child has attained the age of sixteen years. In other w^ords, the permanent helplessness of a minor child is a fact which is capable of demonstration, and the child's title to a continuance of pension because of permanent helplessness is affected only by evidence tending to show discontinuance of such helplessness or a recovery from the disability w^hich originally warranted the granting of the pension under the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890. In the case at bar the Office regarded the evidence on file at the time of the issue of January 9, 1896, as giving the minor title of the proviso under the third section of the act of June 27, 1890. The evidence recently filed show^s that the disability with which the child Mabel was afflicted is as great now as it was when the certificate was issued, and inasmuch as permanent helplessness under the act of June 27, 1890, is a question of fact entirely, there appears to be no reason why her name should be dropped from the rolls because of her recent marriage. Further action by this Division is unnecessary. S. A. Cuddy, Chief of Law Division, Approved : J. L. Davenport, Acting Commissioner. 300 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. HEMIPLEGIA. See Disability: No. 7 (12 P. D., 50). HERNIA. See Pathological Sequence: No. (13 P. D., 184). HONORABLE DISCHARGE. See Desertion : Nos. 1, 2, 3, -x, 4 (f), 0, 7 (9 P. D., 382, 255, 407, 416, 442; 10 P. D., 355, 141; 11 P. D., 13, 332, 362, 373; 12 P. D., 379, 450; 13 P. D., 346; 14 P. D., 352, 380, 466, 552; 15 P. D., 63, 94, 215, 276, 437). See Discharge: No. .2 (9 P. D., 123, 311). See Service: No. 3 (15 P. D., 201). Honorahle discharge — Special act — Act January 29^ 1887. (Thomas J. Morman, 14 P. D., 195.) The records of the War Department showing that claimant was honorably discharged from the service in the war with Mexico, the Commissioner of Pensions has no lawful authority to question such record and must accept the fact as certified to him by the Secretary of War. HOME GUARDS. See Service: No. 9 (9 P. D., 362). HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Dependent Parents : No. 4 (11 P. D., 297 ; 14 P. D., 267, 294). See Marriage: No. 2 (o) (12 P. D., 497). IDENTITY. Reference. See Evidence: No. 5 (9 P. D., 185). Index. 1. Evidence sufficient to establish. 2. Where not established. 1. Evidence Sufficient to Establish. Identity — Service. (John H. Thompson, alias John Clark, 10 P. D., 33.) The record shows that John Clark was enrolled as a substitute for one AVilliam H. Converse, February 11, 1863, and was dis- charged November 11, 1863, by reason of the expiration of his term of enlistment. The testimony of persons who knew claim- ant and met him in the service where he was serving under the name of John Clark ; of his sisters, who corresponded with him under the name of John Clark, of Company D, Sixteenth Mich- igan Volunteers; the testimony of William H. Converse, and PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 301 descriptive list of said Clark, as to his personal description, show that the claimant is the identical John Clark who served in said company and regiment, notwithstanding the fact that he denies that he enlisted as a substitute. 2. Where not Established. Identity — Widow^s claim — Act June 27^ 1890. (Mary E. Washing- ton, widow, 12 P. D., 228.) Appellant filed her claim for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, as the widow of one George Washington, late of Carlisle, Pa., who, she alleged, served in Company E, Fifth Massachu- setts Volunteer Cavalry. On April 3, 1894, one George Wash- ington, residing in Boston, applied for a pension as the person who served in said company and regiment, and his claim was admitted after a special examination, November 9, 1896, appel- lant's claim having been rejected September 8, 1896, on the ground that the evidence failed to show that her deceased hus- band was the person who served in said company. Subse- quently she filed additional testimony to establish the identity of her late husband, but the former rejection of her claim was adhered to. It appears that appellant was in possession of the discharge certificate of the George Washington w^ho rendered the service in said organization when she filed her claim for pen- sion, and it appeared that the same was in the possession of her late husband as early as 1874, but it appeared just as clear that it had at one time been in the hands of the George Washington of Boston, and the personal description therein w^as unques- tionably that of the latter. In view of the fact that a large num- ber of witnesses of good reputation, including comrades, one of whom was a white lieutenant in said company, testified with the pensioner before them that he was the identical George Wash- ington who rendered the service in said organization, and the superior standing and character of the witnesses testifying in behalf of the pensioner as compared with those testifying for appellant, it is held that the evidence does not show that her deceased husband was the soldier who rendered the service as George Washington in Company E, Fifth Massachusetts Cav- alry, and her claim for pension was properly rejected. Identity — Evidence. (Millie Herlong, widow, 15 P. D., 371.) Claimant having failed to satisfactorily prove that her hus- band was identical with the soldier on account of whose services and death pension is claimed, her claim was properly rejected. ILLICIT COHABITATION. See Marriage: No. 2 (t) (15 P. D., 240). 302 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ILLINOIS LAWS. See Dependent Parents: No. 4 (14 P. D., 294). See Divorce: No. 1 (10 P. D., 1) ; No. 2 (13 P. D., 68) ; No. 3 (11 P. D., 406). See Marriage: No. 2 (k) (12 P. D., 481; 15 P. D., 186) ; No. 1 (14 P. D., 43) ; No. 2 (d) (14 P. D., 265) ; No. 2 (f) (15 P. D., 290) ; No. 2 (u) (15 P. D., 236) ; No. 3 (a) (10 P. D., 294; 11 P. D., 320) ; No. 4 (12 P. D., 326) ; No. 12 (14 P. D., 442 ; 9 P. D., 243 ; 11 P. D., 43). See Table of State Statutes for 14 P. D. IMPEDIMENT. See Adulterous Cohabitation: Nos. 6, 10 (14 P. D., 242; 12 P. D., 258). See Marriage: No. 1 (10 P. D., 446) ; No. 2 (e) (15 P. D., 253) ; Nos. 2 (f), 2 (k), 2 (n), 2 (q), 2 (s), 2 (t), 2 (y), 2 (bb), 2 (ee), 2 (gg), and 2 (oo) (14 P. D., 355; 15 P. D., 290; 12 P. D., 481 ; 11 P. D., 97 ; 14 P. D., 349 ; 11 P. D., 114 ; 14 P. D., 417, 554 ; 15 P. D., 211 ; 12 P. D., 306 ; 12 P. D., 340 ; 14 P. D., 365 ; 15 P. D., 208, 413 ; 10 P. D., 211 ; 14 P. D., 212; 10 P. D., 15). See also: Nos. 3 (a), 3 (b), and 3 (c) (9 P. D., 139; 12 P. D., 106, 312, 333, 417) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 497; 10 P. D., 179, 220; 12 P. D., 134, 326, 505; 13 P. D., 90, 402^ 14 P. D., 310) ; No. 7 (9 P. D., 127, 209) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 283) ; No. 9 (10 P. D., 192) ; No. 12 (10 P. D., 162 ; 12 P. D., 292, 348) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 254) ; No. 2 (r) (15 P. D., 464) ; No. 2 (s) (15 P. D., 462) ; No. 2 (b) (15 P. D., 488) ; No. 2 (p) (15 P. D., 530) ; No. 2 (bh) (15 P. D., 543; No. 2 (ii) (15 P. D., 540). IN ARREST AWAITING TRIAL. See Line of Duty; No. 14 (14 P. D., 213). INCURRENCE. * See Death Cause: No. 13 (13 P. D., 313). See Evidence: No. 4 (9 P. D., 237, 392; 10 P. D., 92). See Line of Duty: Nos. 6, 11, 15 (12 P. D., 464; 15 P. D., 54; 11 P. D., 516; 13 P. D., 358). INCUBATION. INCOME. See Line of Duty : No. 15 (13 P. D., 358). See Origin : No. 1 (11 P. D., 329). See Dependent Parents : No. 4 (11 P. D., 297; 12 P. D., 129, 131, 361, 472; 13 P. D., 241, 432; 14 P. D., 267, 271, 294). See Dependent Widow: No. 1 (13 P. D., 125; 15 P. D., 257) ; No. 4 (12 P. D., 266; 13 P. D., 448; 14 P. D., 80, 281, 360; 15 P. D., 127. 203). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 303 INCREASE. References. See Aid and Attendance: No. 1 (9 P. D., 307, 349, 423, 481) ; No. 2 (12 P. D., 70, 215) ; No. 3 (11 P. D., 473) ; No. 4 (11 P. D., 503). See Appeals: No. 6 (13 P. D., 170). See Attorneys: Nos. 8, 9, 11, 14 (10 P. D., 460; 9 P. D., 375; 11 P. D., 429; 12 P. D., 221 ; 11 P. D., 492). See Commencement: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 (9 P. D., 216, 503; 10 P. D., 66 ; 14 P. D., 69 ; 9 P. D., 313, 322 ; 11 P. D., 380 ; 12 P. D., 17). See Evidence: No. 2 (9 P. D., 333). See Fee : Nos. 1, 5, 11, 24 (9 P. D., 147 ; 11 P. D., 508 ; 9 P. D., 117 ; 12 P. D., 239; 14 P. D., 256). See Line of Duty : No. 8 (11 P. D., 191). See Notice: No. 2 (12 P. D., 21). See Pathological Sequence: No. 11 (13 P. D., 107). See Practice: Nos. 4, 7, 13, 16, 19 (9 P. D., 285, 290; 9 P. D., 288; 11 P. D., 451 ; 11 P. D., 122; 13 P. D., 304). See Rate and Rating : Nos. 5, 8 (15 P. D., 207; 12 P. D., 294, 331). See Reimbursement: No. 4 (13 P. D., 13).- See Rerating: Nos. 1, 3, 6 (12 P. D., 212, 283; 15 P. D., 332). See Restoration : No. 1 (10 P. D., 37). Index. 1. Specific disability. 2. Act of January 5, 1893. 3. Defective vision. 4. Paralysis. 5. Act of March 4, 1890, and July 14, 1892. 6. Act March 19, 1886. 7. Act January 5, 1893. 8. Practice. 9. Act of August 4, 1886. 10. Third grade. 1. Specific Disability. Increase — Act March 3^ 1886 — Sjyeci-fic disability. (John R. Har- low, 9 P. D., 54.) Increase of pension under the act of March 3, 1885, relating to pension on account of- loss of arm at the shoulder joint can not commence prior to that date. (Nichols's appeal, 4 P. D., 213.) Increase rate — Act August 4, 1886. (Alexander P. McElroy, 9 P. D., 401.) The first provision of the act of August 4, 1886, does not in- crease pensions for disability from other causes than the loss of a hand or foot or total disability in the same. It does not in- crease pensions for disabilities equivalent to the loss of a hand or foot, 304 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 2. Act of January 5, 1893. Increase — Act January 5, 1893. (John A. Hardy, 10 P. D., 64.) It appearing that this pensioner has a life estate in and the use and benefit of 15 acres of good farming land, upon which he resides, and personal property worth from $90 to $100, from which he derives an annual income of about $75, he can not be held to be " in such destitute circumstances " that the pension of $8 per month he is now receiving under the provisions of the act of January 29, 1887, is " insufficient to provide him the nec- essaries of life." 3. Defective Vision. Increase — Disability — Rate — Defective vision. (William Moore, 12 P. D., 87.) Appellant is adequately pensioned at third grade for the degree of disability shown to result from the loss of left eye, affecting sight of right eye, from gunshot wound, it appearing that he has one-tenth vision remaining in right eye, which would enable him to perform some coarse manual labor not requiring much acuity of vision, and not, therefore, incapacitating for all manual labor, entitling him to the second-grade rate. Increase — Disability — Rate — Defective vision. (John T. Watson, 12 P. D., 92.) In the case at bar a pension at the rate of $17 per month is held by the Bureau to be adequate to the degree of disability resulting from total blindness of one eye and loss of nine-tenths vision in the other eye from corneal opacity. In the case of William Moore (12 P. D., 87), considered by the Department upon appeal November 30, 1901, the Bureau had allowed the third-grade rate ($24 per month) for loss of one eye from traumatism and loss of nine-tenths vision in the other eye from optic atrophy resulting from said injury. The inequality in the rates allowed by the Bureau in these two cases for practically the same degree of inability to perform manual labor of each pensioner by reason of poor vision demon- strates the advisability of adopting some method by which a more equable adjustment of rates in cases of ocular injuries can be made. In the judgment of the Department the rules laid down, the formulas evolved, and the tables prepared showing the relative values of the different defects of vision, by Wiirdemann and Magnus, in their joint work on The Economic Valuation of Vision, furnish a medium or working basis for a more uniform arrangement of rates in such class of cases. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 805 Accepting their maximum and minimum limits, respectively, of the range of visual acuity necessary as a condition of success in the performance of manual labor, namely, 0.50 (one-half) to 0.05 (one-twentieth) of the full scientific standard, as being both practical and approximately correct, though not controlling, it is quite evident that a visual acuity that is limited to one-tenth of normal and exists in but one eye (the conditions shown in this case) is a very low grade of vision. Held : That the degreee of disability resulting from the amount of damage to the visual acuity of the appellant in this case is fully equivalent to the loss of a hand or foot for purposes of manual labor, and warrants the allowance of the third-grade rate (the rate allowed iji the case cited above for an equivalent though not identical cause of disability). 4. Paralysis. Increase — Pathological sequence — Paralysis — Disability. ( Thomas C. Johnson, 12 P. D., 59). The basic principle upon which claims for straight increase under the general law^ are adjudicated involves primarily the question as to whether or not the degree of disability due to pen- sioned cause or causes per se has increased to such an extent as to warrant the allowance of a higher rate of pension, and sec- ondly, the question as to whether or not some sequence has arisen which increases the degree of disability, and consequently war- rants an increase in rate. In the case at bar the essential feature of this principle appears to have been ignored in the adjudication of the pensioner's claims for increase filed April 16, 1896, and June 12, 1897, respectively, each of which w^as rejected principally upon the ground that the paralysis of his left side could not be accepted as a result of the disease of spine for which he is pensioned. In the judgment of the Department the refusal on the part of the Bureau to accept the paralysis of the claimant's left side as a result of the disease of spine for which he is pensioned was justified by the history of the case furnished by the claimant himself; but it is held that the refusal to allow an increase in rate fro'n third to second grade for disease of spine alone, under each and both of said claims, was error, as it was clearly shown at the medical examinations made pursuant to such claims that he was unable to perform any manual labor by reason of said pen- sioned cause. All adverse actions in the said claims, both of the Department and the Bureau, are rescinded and set aside. 1307( 306 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 5. Act of March 4, 1890, and July 14, 1892. Increase — Rerating — Insane persons — Rate — Commencement. (Patrick Mallon, deceased, 13 P. D., 290.) The objective conditions manifested at the medical examination made of the soklier November 30, 1900, pursuant to his claim for increase filed June 14, 1900, when he was pensioned at the second- grade rate for " chronic diarrhea, and disease of mind and ner- vous system, result of sunstroke," were such — when considered in connection with the collateral facts adduced in the case — as war- ranted the allowance of the $50 rate from the date of said exami- nation. Under authority vested in her by the rule laid down in the case of Joel Ames, insane (8 P. I)., 171), and in several other cases, his wife, as next friend, filed a claim for the rerating of his invalid claim from the date of its original allowance, contending that he was entitled to either the $50 rate or the $72 rate from said date. This contention is untenable, as by the express terms of the acts of March 4, 1890, and July 14, 1892, respectively, the rate provided by the former act can only be allowed in such cases as the one at bar from the date of the certificate of an examining surgeon or board of surgeons, showing title to such rate, and the allowance of the rate prescribed in the latter act is prohibited from any date prior to the date of such certificate. Title to the $72 rate was not shown; and inasmuch as the allowance of the $50 rate has been directed in the soldier's claim for increase no other readjustment of rates is warranted. Increase — Restoration — Res judicata — Practice. (Jones A. Hen- derson, 13 P. D., 455.) The appellant is now, and has been since March 3, 1883, pen- sioned at the rate of $30 per month (second grade) for " disease of heart and injury of left knee." In 1889, pursuant to certain facts brought to light by the evidence adduced at a special exami- nation held in the premises, his name was dropped from the rolls, * but it was promptly restored thereto by direction of the First' Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, upon a review of the same evidence and upon the same set of facts that caused the said action of dropping. While the action of restoration does not clear the case from the cloud resting upon it, the appellant is, nevertheless, under the rule laid down in the case of William Wilson (10 P. D., 232), entitled to whatever increase in rate the degree of disability due to pensioned causes may warrant, so long as his name is permitted to remain upon the rolls. In the judgment of the Department, the personal aid and attendance of another person shown to be required in this case PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 307 by reason of said causes, brings the case within the purview of the provisions of the act of July 14, 1892, and consequently warrants the allowance of the $50 rate from the date of the cer- tificate of the medical examination held pursuant to the claim for increase, from the rejection of which the appeal was taken. 6. Act of March 19, 1886. Increase — Act of March 19^ 1886 — Widows. (Mary C. Herbert, widow, U P. D., 95.) . The claimant not having married the sailor prior to the passage of the act of March 19, 1880, or prior to or during the service in which the disability causing death was contracted, she has no title to the $12 per month provided for therein. 7. Act of January 5, 1893. Increase — Act of January 29^ 1887 — Arrears. (Garry W. Lynch, U P. D., 155.) When a pensioner under the act of January 29, 1887, was allowed increase, under the act of January 5, 1893, from a date which was subsequently decided by the Department to have been erroneous in law, and he, pursuant to such decision, applies for arrears of increase from the proper date, as so decided by the Department, which was prior to that from which he was allowed such increase, and shows the existence, at the former date, of the same conditions in fact as to title to increase as existed at the latter date, such arrears should be allowed, notwithstanding such conditions do not, in the opinion of the present adjudicating oiR- cer, establish such title, the question being one of judgment, merely, on the evidence. Increase — Act January J, 1893 — GTay\s hattaliori. (Jasper N. Armstrong, 14 P. D., 285.) As claimant Avas not lawfully on the rolls at the time the act of January 5, 1893, was passed, he was not entitled to increase under its provisions. 8. Practice. Increase — Desertion — Res judicata. (William Wilson, 10 P. D., 232.) Pensioner is in receipt of pension at $17 per month, for rheu- matism and resulting disease of heart. This pension was granted when the rules of practice recognized his service as legal. Since then a change in said rules and in the construction of the law would not permit the allowance of said pension de 710 vo. because the service is considered as nonpensionable. But, under the " general instructions '' in regard to practice in the 308 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Bureau, it is provided that the pension as granted shall not be disturbed as to title, but no additional pension, either as increase or for new disability, may be allowed. • Hence this claim for increase of rating was rejected. It is Held: That while the "general instructions'' are proper and sustained by former decisions as regards original title, yet as long as his name is kept on the rolls he is entitled to increase of rating upon a proper show^ing of increase of the disability for which pensioned. The rejection is accordingly overruled. 9. Act of August 4, 1886. Specific disability — Increase. (Gibhart Kurtz, 9 P. D., 204.) Soldier is pensioned at the rate of $80 per month on account of the loss of a forearm. Upon an application for increase the evidence shows that soldier's arm was amputated at the elbow, and he is entitled to increase under the act of August 4, 1886. 10. Third Grade. Increase — Third grade — Evidence — Disability. (Calvin A. Hutchinson, 11 P. D., 51.) The objective conditions — due to rheumatism and disease of heart, and the sequelae thereof — described in the certificate of the medical examination held August *2, 1899, in pursuance of the claim for increase filed January 28, 1899, show^ — in the judgment of the Department — the existence at that time of a degree of disability fully equivalent to the loss of a hand or foot, for pur- poses of manual labor ; and it is, therefore. Held: That the allowance of the third-grade rate from the date of the certificate of the said medical examination was, and is, fully warranted. INDIANS. See Marriage: No. 8 (13 P. D., 308: 15 P. D., 283). INDIAN WARS. See Service : No. 3 (9 P. D., 143, 178, 206 ; 10 P. D., 26 ; 11 P. D., 177 ; 14 P. D., 13, 296, 298, 408 ; 15 P. D., 23, 44, 51, 124, 130, 201, 375. 394,396). INDIAN DIVORCES. See Divorce: No. 8 (12 P. D., 474). INDIANA LAWS. See Decree of Nullity: No. 3 (11 P. D., 271). See Divorce: No. 3 (11 P. D., 226) : No. 4 (13 P. D., 236) ; No. 5 (15 P. D., 278) ; No. 10 (15 P. D., 389). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 309 See Division of Pensions : No. 12 (13 P. D., 218). See Marriage: No. 2 (1) (13 P. D., 333; 15 P. D., 229) ; Nos. 4, 5 (9 P. D., 5; 10 P. D., 258). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 11, 15 P. D. INFANTS. See Marriage: No. 2 (bb) (10 P. D., 389). . INSANE OR HELPLESS MINOR. See Helpless Minor. INSANITY. See Death Cause: No. 9 (12 P. D., 459). See Division of Pension: No. 4 (14 P. D., 191) ; No. 13 (15 P. D.,- 450). See Helpless Minor: No. 1 (9 P. D., 35.3, 452) ; No. 3 (10 P. D., 22, 224, 368; 12 P. D., 36.5, 527). See Insane Persons ; Nos. 1, 2 (10 P. D., 109; 15 P. D., 270). See Marriage: No. 9 (10 P. D., 192; 15 P. D.. .308). See Pathological Sequence : Nos. 10, 18 (13 P. D., 105 ; 14 P. D., 89). See Reduction : No. 2 (12 P. D., 244). INSANE PERSONS. See Attorneys: No. 5 (9 P. D., 19). See Dependent Widow : No. 2 (12 P. D., 40). See Increase: No. 5 (13 P. D., 290). Index. 1. The wife, as insane husband's agent. 2. Payment of pension. 3. To whom pension should be paid. 1. The Wife, as Insane Husband's Agent. Insane persons — Declarations — Pending claim. (Benjamin R. Mays, insane, 10 P. D., 109.) Application on behalf of an insane sailor without guardian made by his wife accepted as sufficient to constitute a " claim pending " at the date of his death. 2. Payment of Pension. Accrued pension — Payment of pension — Insane pensioner — Mar- riage — Dependency under act of August S, 1882. (Louise Wil- bur, widow, 15 P. D., 270.) Pensioner married one Eliza M. while he was insane and while he had a wife, Louise, living, from whom he was never divorced. The pension accruing to said pensioner while he was insane (hav- ing no guardian) was paid to said Eliza M. under the act of August 8, 1882. 310 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Held: 1. That said payments to Eliza M. were unlawful for the reason that she was not his wife, having married soldier while he was insane, said marriage never having been ratified by him during his sanity, arid for the further reason that at the time of soldier's pretended marriage to her, and at the time said pay- ments were made, soldier had a wife living from .wdiom he was never divorced. 2. Said accrued pension may not be paid to the wife Louise; that she has not been shown to have been, in fact, dependent upon said soldier. 3. The dependency mentioned in said act of August 8, 1882, and the act of August 7, 1882, is dependency in fact and not a technical legal dependency. 3. To Whom Pension should be Paid. Payment of pension — Insane pensioner — Government Hospital for the Insane — Acts of August 7 and August 8, 1882. (Franz J. Disaga, 15 P. D., 430.) The act of August 7, 1882, specifically directs that the pension money of an insane invalid pensioner who has been transferred from the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers to the Government Hospital for the Insane in Washington, D. C, be paid to the proper officer of the Government Hospital for the Insane. The act of August 7, 1882, is in no wise amended or repealed by the act of August 8, 1882. INTENT. See Division of Pension : No. 4 (14 P. D., 191). INSTRUCTIONS. See Declarations : No. 1 (9 P. D., 93). See Minors : No. 3 (10 P. D., 465). See Rate and Rating : No. 11 (9 P. D., 125). INFLAMMATION OF THE BLADDER, AND HERNIA. See Pathological Sequence: No. 9 (13 P. D., 184). INJURY TO BACK. See Pathological Sequence: No. 1 (15 P. D., 150). INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. See Divorce: No. 5 (11 P. D., 499; 15 P. D., 278). See Practice: No. 24 (14 P. D., 3(M). I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 311 INTERLOCUTORY DECREE. See Divorce: No. 5 (11 P. I)., 499; 15 P. D., 278). IOWA LAWS. See 1>ivorce: No. 2 (15 P. D., 174). See Marriage: Nos. 2 (m), 2 (a) (10 P. D., 118, 12.S; 11 P. D., 74). See Tari.es of State Statutes for 10 aDd 11 P. D. JUDGES' MINUTES. See Divorce: No. 10 (15 P. D.. .380). JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY 1, 1902. See Accrued Pensions: Nos. 5, 10, 11 (11 P. D., 241; 14 P. D.. 104, 422). See Desertion: No. 4 (a) (12 P. D., 450; 15 P. D., 63) ; No. 4 (b) (14 P. D., 375, .380, 4(\{y: 15 P. D., 110, 525) ; No. 4 (c) (13 P. D.^ .340; 14 P. D., .552) ; No. 4 (d) (15 P. D., 215) ; No. 4 (e) (15 P. D., 94) ; No. 4 (f) (14 P. D., 3.52, ,502; 15 P. D., 4.37) ; No. 4 (g) 15 P. D.. 8) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 270). See Disix)yalty: Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 (13 P. D., 128, 248, 2.59, .349, .395; 14 P. D., 104, 422 ; 15 P. D., 70, .3.37, 309). See Fee: No. 23 (14 P. D., 270). (a) Confederates. See Accrued Pensions: Nos. 5, 10, 11 (11 P. D., 241; 14 P. D., 104, 422). See Disloyalty : Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 (13 P. D., 128, 248, 259, .349, 395; 14 P. D., 104, 422 ; 15 P. D., 76, 337, 369. See Fee : No. 23 (14 P. D., 276). (b) Union Deserters. See Desertion: No. 4 (a) (12 P. D., 450; 15 P. D., 03) ; No. 4 (b) (14 P. D., 375, 380, 4(i6; 15 P. D., 116, 525) ; No. 4 (c) (13 P. D., .346; 14 P. D., 552) ; No. 4 (d) (15 P. D., 215) ; No. 4 (e) (15 P. D., 94) ; No. 4 (f) (14 P. D., .352, 502; 15 P. D., 437) ; No. 4 (g) (15 P. D., 8).; No. 7 (15 P. D., 270). JURISDICTION. References. See Accrued Pension: No. 4 (11 P. D., .3.51). See Decree of Nullity: Nos. 3. 4, 7 (11 P. D., 271; 13 P. D., 460; 15 P. D., 286) ; No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Declarations: No. 4 (11 P. D., 210) ; No. 6 (11 P. D., 2.57, 420). See Divorce: Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10 (10 P. D., 434; 11 P. D., 220. 406; 13 P. D., 208, 2.36; 14 P. D., 173, 279). See Division of Pension: No. 5 (11 P. D., 494) ; No. 9 (12 P. D., 263, ,336) ; No. 15 (14 P. D., 2,30). See Fee: No. 7 (12 P. D., 109). See Guardian : Nos. 1, 3 (9 P. D., 55 ; 15 P. D., 364). 312 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. See Marriage: No. 11 (15 P. D., 459) ; No. 15 (15 P. D., 503). See Practice: No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). See Service: No. 2 (9 P. D., 87). Index. 1. Of Commissioner oyer medical examinations. 2. Guardianship. 3. Practice. 4. Secretary of the Interior. 5. Secretary of War. 1. Of Commissioner Over Medical Examinations. Jurisdiction — Medical examinations — Experts — Act Jvly 25^ 1882. (Samuel S. Bowman, 11 P. D., 348.) The third subdivision of section 4 of the act of July 25, 1882, confers discretion on the Commissioner of Pensions, in the exercise of which he may order a claimant to be examined by an expert without an examination before a full board of examining surgeons. 2. Guardianship. Jurisdiction — Guardianship — Pension fund — Accrued pension. (Guardian of George J. Brick, insane, 12 P. D., 147.) The Commissioner of Pensions is without authority, in the absence of legislation by Congress giving him power so to do, to suspend the quarterly payments of pension to the duly appointed and qualified guardian or committee of an insane pensioner . solely upon the ground that funds have accumulated in the hands of such guardian or committee in excess of the needs of the insane pensioner, and when there is no charge or proof of any maladministration, embezzlement, or unlawful conversion to his own use by such guardian or committee of the pension money in his hands belonging to his ward; The decision of this Department of May 22, 1901 (11 P. D., 351), is hereby modified and overruled. 3. Practice. Record., amendment of same — Jurisdiction. (George W. Drake, 9 P. D., 273.) The official records of the War and Treasury Departments fail to show that this appellant w^as in the military service of the United States at any time during the war of the rebellion, and all testimony offered to controvert the record should be filed in the War Department, as the Bureau and this Department are bound by such record. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 313 Secretary of the Interior. Reduction — Aid and attendance — Practice — Fraud — Jurisdiction — Res judicata — Medical referee — Record. (William Blaisdell, deceased, 13 P. D., 465.) 1. There is no statute inhibiting one administration from re- viewing the action of a past administration, and the Department may not make any such inhibition. 2. The Department may, however, in the interests of good administration and on grounds of public policy, properly and lawfully refuse such review except on error or gross injustice appearing on the face of the record or clearly demonstrated in a motion for reconsideration. 3. Failure by the Department to entertain as a motion for reconsideration a guardian's letter setting forth facts sufficient under the rules to constitute a valid motion for reconsideration of a decision adverse to such guardian's ward is such error as will be corrected, after the ward's death, on motion regularly made by one entitled to claim the latter's accrued pension. 4. In exercising such powder of review one administration may not disturb the action of a past administration so as to affect pension already paid thereunder, unless fraud or mistake of fact be shown; but an erroneous judgment on the evidence may be corrected by any succeeding administration, so far as regards future pension. 5. The ^Commissioner of Pensions hae, with the consent and under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, full power at any time to increase or to reduce a pension according to right and justice, subject only to certain provisions as to notice and hearing, and it is his duty to reduce or to w^ithdraw pension when it is shown to be contrary to a clear and unam- biguous law as to which no misconstruction is possible. 6. The opinion of the medical referee, while generally accepted on purely medical questions, is not conclusive, but is advisory only, and on questions of mental capacity and of facts lying within the range of common observation and experience his opinion, and medical testimony generally, is not entitled to any greater weight because of the fact of his or the witness being a physician, but such questions should be decided upon all the evidence in the case. 7. The question of title to the first-grade rate is one of mixed law^ and fact, to be decided from all the laws in pari materia on the one hand and from all the evidence on the other. 8. Insanity does not of itself necessarily entitle to either the first grade or the intermediate rate, but it must be shown that 314 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the disability or disabilities established as originating in line of duty in service totally incapacitate the soldier for manual labor, and also necessitate the regular or the frequent and peri- odical personal aid and attendance of another. 9. The public record as to the cause of death is not conclusive, but the question of death cause is one of fact to be decided ui)ou all the evidence, and the medical referee's conclusion as to such cause is generally followed by the Department when based upon all the evidence and upon facts appearing therein reasonably and fairly warranting it. 10. The evidence herein shows that the allowance of pension at the first-grade rate in January, 1891, was erroneous and ille- gal, as it included disabilities which had not been established as of service origin, and as neither total incapacity for manual labor nor regular personal aid and attendance of another per- son, within the meaning of the law as construed by the De- partment, existed by reason of the only cause, sciatic rheumatism, shown to have originated in line of duty in service, and that the rate was properly reduced to $10 per month from July 4, 1893, neither such incapacity for labor nor such need of aid and at- tendance having existed since that date from said cause. 11. The soldier's mental disease or infirmity is show^n to have had no probable or possible pathological connection with said disease on account of which he was properly pensionable, sciatic rheumatism, nor any connection otherwise with his military service, but is shown to have been probably due to other and nonservice causes. 12. A bare preponderance of testimony is not sufficient to es- tablish fraud, but there must be such clear and ample preponder- ance as to satisfy the mind and conscience of the fact of fraud. 13. It is error to omit, on special examination of a claim, to cross-examine procurable w^itnesses whose affidavits prima facie establish such claim. 5. Secretary of War. Jurisdietion — Secretary of War — Officer — Service — Veterinavji Surgeon — Appointment. (Margaret J. Treacy, 13 P. D., 416). 1. The Secretary of War has the pow er and authority under tlu^ Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, under regu- lations of the War Department approved by the President, to appoint an officer to fill an office created by act of Congress, when the appointment is not otherwise provided for. 2. A veterinary surgeon is not a civil employee, but an officer within the meaning of paragraph 1, section 4693, Revised Stat utes of the United States. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 315 FDGMENT. See Divorce: No. 5 (15 P. D., 278) ; No. 10 (15 P. D., 389). KENTUCKY LAWS. See Legitimacy: Nos. 4, 7 (15 P. D., .S8G ; 14 ^. D.. 474). See Marriage: No. 2 (o) (12 P. D., 4.30, 407; 1.3 P. D., (>4) ; No. 12 (12 P. D., 202) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 1,57, 441; 12 P. D., 150, 447). See also 10 P. D., 1.58, 442 ; 12 P. D.. 440, 102 ; 13 P. D., 05. See Tables of State Statutes for 10, 12, 13, and 14 P. D. KANSAS LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (n) (11 P. D., 07) ; No. 2 (y) (15 P. D., 211). LAY TESTIMONY. See Death Cause: No. 4 (10 P. D., 453). LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. See Bounty Land: No. 3 (15 P. D., .501). LEGITIMACY. References. See Marriage : No. 2 (y), 2 (rr) (15 P. D., 211 ; 10 P. D.. 227) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 78) ; No. 8 (13 P. D„ 308) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 75) ; No. 2 (b)(15 P. D.,488). Index. 1. Minors, laws of New York. 2. Laws of Maryland. 3. Laws of Tennessee. 4. Parents must be legally married. 5. Evidence. 0. In state of Missouri. 7. Kentucky laws. 8. Ohio laws. 1. Minors, Laws of New York. Legitimacy — Marriage. (Katie Smith, minor, 9 P. D., 199.) It appearing that the marriage of the parents of this minor was " absokitely void '' under the laws of the State of New York, where all the parties resided both before and after said marriage, she was not a legitimate child of said deceased sailor and has no title to pension as a minor under the ^^rovisions of the pension laws. 2. Laws of Maryland. Marriage of slaves in Maryland— Legitimacy. (Samuel Tuttle, father, 11 P. D., 278.) Under the laws of Maryland slaves might legally marry and the issue of their marriages was legitimate. 316 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 3. Laws of Tennessee. Marriage — Legitimacy — Slaves — Laws of 7'ennessee. (Heuben Burton, father, 11 P. D., 294.) The evidence in this case shows that this appellant married the mother of the deceased soldier in the State of Tennessee in 1844 according to the custom of slaves ; that the deceased soldier was born of said marriage in 1845, and was always known and acknowledged as the son of the appellant; that the appellant and the mother of soldier lived and cohabited together as hus- band and wife and were universallv so known and recoo^nized from the date of their slave marriage until the death of the latter in 1872; that they were so living together in the State of Ten- nessee on May 26, 1866, the date of the act of said State making said marriage legal and valid for all purposes and legitimizing all the issue of such marriage. There is no competent or suffi- cient evidence in this case indicating that the appellant was not the father of the deceased soldier, and he should be accepted as such for pensionable purposes. 4. Parents Must Be Legally Married. Marriage and divorce — Legitimacy — Minors. (Alleged minors of William Hartley, 11 P. D., 40.) 1. A minor child to be pensionable must be the child of a woman to whom the soldier, its father, was legally married, not- withstanding that soldier solemnly declared and recognized it to be his legitimate child. 2. It appearing that the deceased soldier had been lawfully married prior to his marriage to the mother of the above-named minor children, that said marriage was never dissolved by divorce, and that said first wife survived him and is at present in receipt of a pension as his widow, and that the mother of said minor children also survived the soldier and is now living, said minors have no title whatever to pension as minor children of the deceased soldier under the provisions of the pension laws. (See case of alleged minors of Jonas W. Pulver, 10 P. D., 227.) Legitimacy — Marriage — Colored soldiers — Evidence — Section 470^^ of the Revised Statutes — Act of August 7, 1882. (Minor of James Cofield, alias William Scofield, 15 P. D., 386.) A claimant under the Revised Statutes as minor child of a col- ored soldier may establish his legitimacy under either the act of August 7, 1882, as to marriage, or section 4705 of the Revised Statutes, and must establish legitimacy by showing either a valid marriage under the lex matrimonii of his parents' domicile or the de facto marital conditions })rescribed in said section 4705. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 317 Distinguishing, as to proof of legitimacy, claims by dependent parents. 5. Evidence — Law of Arkansas. Legitimacy — Evidence — Proof of death. (Cora B., minor of Thomas J. Fox, 12 P. D., 102.) The evidence shows that the mother of this claimant married one Little in 1877, in Pike County, Ark., and in the same year removed to Hempstead County, in the same State; that said mother returned to her relatives and friends in Pike County in 1870 and reported that said husband was dead, bringing an infant son by said marriage with her; that in 1883 she married claimant's father, Thomas J. Fox (now deceased), who survived her; that it was understood and believed by her relatives, friends, find neighbors that said former husband died in 1879, said son by said former husband testifying also that he resided w^ith his mother until her death, in 1885, and was always told that his father died Avhile he was a small child. It is Held: In harmony with the cases of Kelly's heirs v. McGuire et al. (15 Ark., 605), and Wilson v. Brownlee (24 Ark., 586), that declarations by members and relatives of the family, or general repute in the family, are good evidence to establish death, heirship, and the like, though disconnected with any ques- tion of pedigree; and in this case satisfactorily establishes that claimant's mother's first husband died prior to her marriage to her father. Fox, and that said marriage was legal, and she is the legitimate daughter of said soldier. 6. In State of Missouri. Legitimacy — Marriage — Void marriage — Missoifri laws, (Minors of Harvey Perkins, 13 P. D., 414.) In the State of Missouri children born of an illegal marriage can inherit and transmit by descent the same as if born of lawful marriage, and it is held that the minors in this case are legitimate for pensionable purpose^ 7. Kentucky Laws. Legitimacy — Marriage — Kentucky laws — Slaves — Act of August 7, 1882 — Dependent father. (Patrick Chambers, father, 14 P. D., 474.) The claimant and the mother of the soldier contracted a valid slave marriage, but never ratified the same under the laws of Kentucky, the State in which they resided. Held: The laws of the State of Kentucky made the children of this slave marriage legitimate ; and inasmuch as this claiming 318 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. father could inherit from soldier, his legal status as a father is established. It is the lex loci which governs in such a case as the present one, wholly apart from the act of August 7, 1882, which has no bearing upon the issue herein involved. Opinion in the case of Gus Johnson (8 P. D., 463) is herebv modified. 8. Ohio Laws. Marriage and divorce — Legitimacy — Ohio laws. (Minor of Ed- ward Plount, 13 P. D., 541.) A child who is the issue of a de facto marriage is, in the State o2 Ohio, legitimate, and must be held to be legitimate under the act of June 27, 1890. (See minors of Harvey Perkins, 13 P. D., 414.) The opinion in the case of minors of James W. Pulver (10 P. D., 227), so far as it relates to such issue, is expressly over- ruled. Marriage — Laws of Ohio — Legitimacy — Evidence. (Minor of Ed- ward Plount, 14 P. D., 428.) 1. A common-law marriage may arise in the State of Ohio after the removal of an impediment, the lawfulness of said mar- riage being based not upon a new contract as a fact in evidence, but upon a presumption that a new contract was entered into. 2. The marital status in pension cases must be determined by the law of the State in w^hich the marriage w^as consummated or according to the laws of the State in which the claim arises. A marriage under a certain state of facts being law^ful in one State, it does not follow that a marriage in another State under an equivalent state of facts is a lawful one. (Act of xlugust 7, 1882.) 3. The legitimacy of a child for pensionable purposes is to be determined by the marital status of its parents under the act of August 7, 1882, or under section 4704, Revised Statutes. A State statute as to legitimacy of children has no force in pension claims. (Tpinions in cases of minors of Perkins (13 P. D., 414) and of Plount (13 P. D., 541) , overruled. Opinion in case of minors of Pulver (10 P. D., 227) rein- stated. , LEAVE OF ABSENCE. See Line of Duty : No. 7 (11 P. D., 30 ; 12 P. D., 431 ; 14 I . D., 114). LENGTH OF SERVICE. See Service: Nos.,22, 24 (9 P. D., 289 ; 11 P. D., 200. 48.5 ; 1.3 P. D., 230, 237; 14 P. D., 257, 494; 15 P. D., 198, 281, 294, 340, 548). r PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 319 LEX DOMICILII. See Evidence: No. 10 (15 P. I)., 347). LIGHTNING STROKE AND PARALYSIS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 12 (13 P. D., 1G2). LIMITATION. References. See Decree of Nullity: No. (> (15 P. D., 227). See Dependent Parents : Nos. 2, 9 (11 P. D.. 171 ; 15 P. D., 172, 194). See Division of Pension : No, 19 (14 P. D., 1). See Fee: Nos. 9, 21 (10 P. D., 357; 13 P. D., 37, 39). See Minor : No. 3 (10 P. D., 465). See Practice: No. 6 (11 P. D., 95, 112). See Service: No. 3 (14 P. D., 13). Index. 1. Claims of dependent brothers and sisters. 2. Secretary's power. 3. Fee— Attorneys. 4. Section 4713, Revised Statutes. 5. On widow who marries soldier after passage act of March 3, 1899. 6. Act of March 3, 1879— Minors. 1. Claims of Dependent Brothers and Sisters. Limitation — Orphan brothers and sisters. (Lucy Hunt, 9 P. D., 160.) The limitation as to the date of commencement of pension be- cause of the date of filing the claim therefor, contained in the sec- ond section of the act of March 3, 1879, applies to claims in be- half of orphan brothers and sisters. Limitation — Dependent brothers and sistei's. (Dependent sister of William A. Baker, 9 P. D., 504.) The evidence shows that claimant was over 16 years of age at the time of filing her declaration, as well as at the date of depend- ent mother's death, and she is not entitled to pension as depend- ent sister of the soldier, as the exception to the limitation con- tained in the act of March 3, 1879, does not apply to claims of dej^endent brothers and sisters of the soldier. Limitation — Act March 3, 1879 — Orphan brothers and sisters. (Mary C. Fleming, formerly Bassett, as minor sister, 14 P. D., 489.) The proviso to the act of March 3, 1879, excepting from the limitation therein prescribed as to date of filing " claims by or in behalf of insane persons and children under 16 years of age " does not apply to claims of orphan brothers and sisters. (Minor 320 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. sisters of Alexander Sutton, 8 P. D., 137 ; Lucy Hunt, 9 P. D., 160; dependent sister of William A. Baker, ibid., 504.) 2. Secretary's Power. Limitation — Pending claim — Appeal. (William H. Hughes, de- ceased, 9 P. D., 152.) The power conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior to establish rules and regulations for the examination and adjudi- cation of claims for pension does not authorize the enactment of a rule or statute of limitations, and the decisions in the cases of Jacob AYolhart (8 P. D., 226), Henry Groppe (id., 293), and Briggs Soper (id., 394), in so far as they limit the time of filing an appeal by a widow from the rejection of her husband's pen- sion claim, are overruled and set aside. 3. Fee — Attorneys. Limitation — Fee — Attorneys. (Jacob Paul, claimant; Milo B. Stevens & Co., attorneys, 10 P. D., 421.) Order No. 354 of the Comniissioner of Pensions is prospective only. Title to fee which had accrued prior to the promulgation of said order can be proj^erly asserted at any time within three years from the promulgation of said order. 4. Section 4713, Revised Statutes. Limitation^ section Jf713^ Revised Statutes — Anterehellion pensions. (Minor of Simon Johnson, 10 P. D., 417.) The minor's application in this case was filed in 1899. The person on account of whose death the claim is filed died in 1815. Held: That the claim is barred by the provisions of section 4713, Revised Statutes. 5. On Widow who Marries Soldier After Passage of Act of March 3, 1899. Limitation — Marriage — Act March J, 1^99 — Widows. (Henrietta Briggs, widow, 12 P. D., 479.) The onh^ widow w^ho is required by the fourth proviso of the act of March 3, 1899, to have lived and cohabited with her hus- band continuously from the date of their marriage to the date of his death in order to establish her pensionable status is one whose marriage occurred on or subsequent to the passage of the act and subsequent to his last military or naval service, he not having served in the war between the United States and the Kingdom of Spain. Claimant having married soldier June 17, 1899, and lived and cohabited with him continuously from the date of the marriage to the date of his death, Januai-y 3, 1900, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 321 the rejection of her claim on the ground that she married the soldier subsequent to the passage of said act was error. 6. Act of March 3, 1879— Minors. Lhnitatioii — Act March 3, 1879 — Miriors. (Minors of James F. Burkhead, 14 P. D., 24.) 1. The words " children under sixteen years of age," as used in the exception to the proviso to section 2 of the act of March 3, 1879, mean children of the soldier on account of whose service and death pension is claimed, who were under the age of 16 years at the time of his death or at the date of the death or remarriage of his widow, and not to children who are under 16 years of age when thej^ apply for such pension. 2. Children of a soldier who were at any time prior to arriv- ing at the age of 16 years entitled to pension on account of the service and death of their father from a cause arising in the service and in line of duty, by reason of the exception to the limitation contained in the proviso in section 2 of the act of March 3, 1879, may apply for and receive such pension even after arriving at the age of 16 years. (Citing cases of Caroline Fritsche, 8 P. D., o. s., 196; Secretary Teller's instructions, March 3, 1885; Thomas W. Baugher, 7 P. D., 433; James H. Hawksley, 6 L. B. P., 454; Cornelia A. Nyland, 3 P. D., o. s., 256; Eli Phipps, 8 P. D., 111.) Instructions (10 P. D., 465) overruled. LINE OF DUTY. References. See Age: No. 2 (11 P. D., 1{«, 240, 286). See Desertion : No. 1 (1) P. D., 382) ; No. 3 (a) (9 P. D., 416 ; 11 P. D., 373; 12 P. D., 253, 370). See Disloyalty: No. 5 (11 P. D., 200). See Discharge: No. 3 (10 P. D., 82). See Evidence: No. 10 (15 P. D., 500). See Origin: No. 2 (12 P. D., 298). Index. 1. On a pass to hunt. 2. Personal altercation. 3. Engaged in athletic sijorts. 4. Poison by wood alcohol. 5. Provost-marshal. 6. Undergoing imnishment. 7. Absent from counuand. 8. Accidental wound. 0. Killed accidentally by falling from window. 10. Killed while hunting. 11. May be presumed, when. 1307( 322 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 12. Retired officer. 13. Pass to visit. 14. In arrest awaiting trial. 15. Evidence — origin. 16. Senile cataract. 17. Accidental injury. 18. Assisting a teamster. 19. Death from drinking unboiled water. 1. On a Pass to Hunt. Line of duty — Ori a pass to hunt. (Margaret M. Hoffman, widow, 9 P. D., 227.) The War Department reports that soldier was accidentally killed in line of duty while on a pass to hunt; that hunting is encouraged in the Regular Army, and regarded as improving the soldiers as marksmen, and as much in the line of duty while on such pass to hunt as while undergoing small-arms practice at the target range, and that a soldier killed or wounded while so engaged, not in consequence of any willful neglect or im- proper conduct on his part, is considered in line of duty. Held: 1. That in view of the fact that the records of the War Department are usually accepted as conclusive upon all other questions relating to a soldier's service, the contemporaneous record made by the proper medical officer that soldier was in line of duty when killed should be regarded, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as controlling upon that question. 2. In cases where such record does not appear, the question of line of duty must be determined by the best obtainable parol evidence in each case, showing the facts or circumstances under which the disability was incurred. 2. Personal Altercation. Line of duty — Personal altercation, (Adolphus Limoges, 9 P. D., 274.) Claimant having taken a pocketbook from a drunken com- rade while the latter was asleep, and having refused to return it upon demand, was assaulted with a club, and sustained perma- nent injury of the left shoulder. Held: That the injury w^as not incurred in the line of duty. Death cause — Line of duty. (Rebecca J. Gillcof, widow of John Barton, 9 P. D., 406.) Soldier, Avho had been home on a ten days' furlough for the purpose of voting at an election, while waiting at the wharf for passage on a steamer on w^hich he w^as to return to his com- mand got into an altercation with some persons, one of whom struck him on the head with a stone, killing him instantly. >l PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 323 Held: He was not in line of duty, and therefore his death was not due to the service, and his widow is not pensionable luider the general pension laws. 3. Engaged in Athletic Sports. Line of duty — Engaged in athletie sport.'i. (Lindley Ruddick, 10 P. D., 217.) It appearing from the evidence that the injury to right shoul- der, alleged as basis for additional pension, was incurred by this pensioner while in camp engaged in athletic sports, and was not the result of any wrongful or improper conduct on his part, nor in violation of any rule or regulation of the military service, nor in disobedience of orders from his superior officers, it was error to hold that it had not been received in line of duty. (Henry Newman, 8 P. D., 532.) 4. Poison by Wood Alcohol. Line of duty — Poinon — Wood alcohol. (Joseph E. Hendrickson, 10 P. D., 376.) Appellant is shown to have become totally blind in both eyes w^hile in the service. Blindness developed soon after the inges- tion of a poisonous quantity of wood alcohol. At the same time the soldier was convalescing from pneumonia, which was com- plicated by malarial fever. The evidence on file warrants the conclusion that the total loss of vision in this case was due to wood-alcohol poisoning and not to malarial poisoning, as alleged. Line of duty — Blindness — Wood alcohol — Poison. (Joseph E. Hendrickson, 12 P. D., 269.) The expert evidence filed in the case since the former decision in the same (10 P. D., 376) was rendered emphasized the conclu- sions reached in said former decision that claimant's loss of vision was due to wood-alcohol poisoning, not due to the service in line of duty, and said decision is adhered to, and the motion to reconsider and set the same aside is overruled. 5. Provost-Marshal. Line of duty — Provost-Marshals — Evidence. (Minor of James Hayne, 10 P. D., 345.) In the case of a pr'ovost-marshal, deputy provost-marshal, or enrolling officer, wounded or injured during the period in which he held such office, there is no presumption that such w ound or injury was received while such officer was in the discharge of his duty, but it must be proved that such officer incurred his disa- bility in the actual discharge of his duty as such officer. 324 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 6. Undergoing Punishment. Line of duty — Undergoing punish7ne7it. (Sarah J. Hawkins, widow, 10 P. D., 370.) As soldier's death cause was contracted while he was under arrest and confinement under sentence of a court-martial on a charge of exciting mutiny, his widow is not pensionable, for the reason that said death cause was not incurred in the line of duty. Line of duty — Incurrence — Undergoing punishment. (John J. Macentee, 12 P. D., 464.) The claimant being at time of incurrence of injuries in con- finement undergoing sentence of a court-martial, he was not in line of duty for pensionable purposes. Line of duty — Undergoing sentence. (Fred Gleeman, 15 P. D., 54.) '..... Soldier alleges disability incurred while undergoing sentence of court-martial, the act which caused the injury not being one peculiarly incident to his duty as a soldier independent of that put upon him by the sentence of court-martial. Held: Not in line of duty. 7. Absent from Command. Line of duty — Leaoe of absence. (William Smith, 11 P. D., 30.) This appellant was granted leave of absence by his command- ing officer to visit his family, with orders to return and report to his command on a certain day and at a designated place. In obedience to said orders he returned and reported at the place and on the day designated therein, but found that his command had moved on and Avas not at said place, which w^as occupied by the enemy, who attacked and wounded him. Held: That the appellant was in the line of duty when wounded under the foregoing circumstances. Line of duty — ^4 hsence from command — .4 cciden tal injury. ( James D. Silman, 12P. D.,431.) The claimant being absent from his camp, by permission, to visit a near-by town, in pursuit of his own pleasure and recreation, and being injured in the right eye by an accidental blow from a fireball shot from a roman candle during Christmas festivities in the town was not in line of duty, and is not entitled to pension on account of such injury so incurred. Line of duty — Absence from command — Section Jt.702^ Revised Statutes. (Minor of Anthony J. Brechbiel, 14 P. D., 114.) It appearing from the evidence in this case that at the time this soldier lost his life by drowning he was absent from his com- mand on a pass, attending a picnic party for his own pleasure and PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 325 amusement, he was not in " line of duty " within the meaning and intent of those words as used in the pension laws, and his death under such circumstances confers no title to pension upon his minor child under the provisions of section 4702, Revised Stat- utes, and the decisions of this Department. 8. Accidental Wound. Line of duty — Accidental discharge of f. rearms, (George E. Wykoff, 9P. D., 52.). Soldier was w^ounded by the accidental discharge of a gun while hunting for his own pleasure, and was not in the line of duty. Line of duty — Accidental wound. (James E. Harrison, 9 P. D., 483.) Soldier, by permission of his superior officer, was engaged in hunting with a gun for his own pleasure and amusement, and while so engaged received the injury alleged as a basis for pen- sion, by the careless and negligent handling of his gun. Held: That he was not in line of duty. Line of duty — Evidence — Increase — Accidental wound. (Pinck- ney Hopper, 11 P. D., 191.) . The certificates of medical examination made under the claim for increase do not show that the disabilities from pensioned causes have increased. The evidence on file in the case shows that the newly alleged disability — gunshot wound of right ankle — was not incurred in line of duty, having been caused by the accidental discharge of a pistol carried by claimant at his own risk. Line of duty — Accidental injury — Pistol wound — Negligence. (Joseph Heimkel, 14 P. D., 203.) The soldier was wounded by the accidental discharge of a re- volver while cleaning it in quarters, he not knowing that it was loaded. The Army Regulations prohibit the taking of loaded weapons to quarters, but it does not appear that he knowingly and willfully disobeyed regulations, or was guilty of culpable or gross negligence in handling the weapon. It is therefore held that the wound was incurred in line of duty. 8. Accidental Wound. Line of duty — Accidental injury while scuffling. (Addie F. Wilde, widow, 14 P. D., 506.) The soldier was shot accidentally, by a comrade whom he had pulled out of bed " in a playful manner." Held: That the wound was not received in the line of duty. 326 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 9. Killed Accidentally by Falling from Window. Line of duty — Death cause — Accidental fall. (Mary E. Parker, now Resdin, widow, 11 P. D., 103.) Soldier was killed by a fall from a window at the hotel at which he was stopping just prior to his final payment and the disbandment of his command. It is held that his death was not due to his military service in line of duty. 10. Killed while Hunting. Line of duty — On a pass to hunt. (Minor of James S. Marsteller, 11 P. D., 55.) The officer, father of this minor, having been killed by the accidental discharge of his gun while hunting by permission of the commanding officer of the post, not the consequence of any willful neglect or improper conduct on his part, his death is considered to have occurred in the line of duty, the commander of said post reporting that said officer at the time he was killed was considered on detached service. (See case of Margaret M. Hoffman, 9 P. D., 277.) 11. May Be Presumed When. Incurrence — Line of duty — Evidence — Presumptiort . (Francis Baltzer, 11 P. D., 510.) The prior soundness of the claimant being well established and it being shown that he performed active duty of the most arduous character, immediately following which he was taken sick with a congestive chill and sent to hospital, where after ■ three months' treatment he was discharged the service on ac- count of inguinal hernia and synovitis of the knee joint, and there being no intimation that the claimant Avas at any time out- side the line of duty, it will be presumed that his alleged double hernia was the result of his military service in line of duty. Line of duty — Evidence — Presumptions. (William D. Mitchell, 11 P. D., 84.) When prior soundness is shown, and a reasonable degree of proof that the injury was sustained in the service is furnished, there being no circumstances which would raise a suspicion that it was incurred outside the line of duty, and such injury is shown to have existed at discharge, it will be presumed that the injury was incurred in line of duty. 12. Retired Officer. Line of duty — Retired officer — Origin. (Catherine Meade, widow, 11 P. D.,'28.) A soldier, retired after thirty years' service, can not be con- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 327 sidered as still in the service for pensionable purposes without due proof of the origin of disability in line of duty. The service contemplated by the law is active service, and disability or death must be shown to be due thereto. Soldier having had syphilis in service and there being intervals between his enlistments, as well as four years of separation from active service after his retirement, can not be presumed to have contracted disease of urinary organs, which led to his death, in service and line of duty simply because his active service ex- tended over thirty years. Definite proof of origin and continu- ance is necessary. [13. Pass to Visit. Line of duty — On a pass to visit friends. (Robert A. Smith, 12 P. D., 142.) The evidence showing that the injury for which claimant seeks pension was incurred while he was absent from his proper com- mand by verbal permission of his captain, for the purpose of visiting his family, and that at the time of said injury he was not performing any military service, but was running from some rebel cavalr}^, having joined, in his flight, some other troops, with whom he remained several days hiding out in the woods, it is Held: That his injury was not incurred in the line of duty. 14. In Arrest Awaiting Trial. Line of duty — In arrest atvaiting trial — Death. (Sarah Phillips, now Clark, widow, 14 P. D., 2i3.) A disease contracted by soldier while in confinement awaiting trial for a breach of military duty is not necessarily incurred without the line of duty, and when the soldier is acquitted, or died while awaiting trial, a disease so contracted is held to have been incurred in line of duty. [15. Evidence — Origin. Incurre7ice — Line of duty — Typhoid fever — Incubation. (Arthur G. Mellinger, 13 P. D., 358.) The rejection of the claim for typhoid fever and alleged result- ing disease of eyes and lungs upon the ground that the same was not incurred in line of duty, claimant being absent from his com- mand on verbal furlough at date of incurrence, was improper, inasmuch as it is not impossible that the incubation stage of said fever may have extended beyond the date of the furlough. The claim is therefore returned for read judication, treating dis- ease of eyes and typhoid fever and alleged results thereof as distinct affections. 328 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Line of duty — Evidence — Origin. (Edward T. Courtney, 14 P. D.,, 518.) The evidence showing that the claimant incurred a hernia of the right side while in the service, with a strong probability that it was incurred in the line of duty, it is held that whatever of doubt there may be as to origin in line of duty should be resolved in his favor. 16. Senile Cataract. Line of duty — Senile cataract. (Jeremiah Bowman, 14 P. D.,495.) A disability due to senile cataract is not pensionable under the general law as construed by the Attorney-General (7 Op., 149), because the same is not due to the service in line of duty. 17. Accidental Injury. Line of duty — Accidental injury. (Henry A. Helmer, 9 P. D., 130.) Soldier, while riding over the battlefield of Pea Ridge, Ark., after that battle, for his own amusement, on a horse he had bor- rowed from his captain, was thrown and sustained an injury upon which he based a claim for pension. It is held that said injury was not incurred in line of duty. (Reaffirming same case, 7 P. D., 396.) Line of duty — Accidental injury. (Delbert H. Ensor, 14 P. D., 81.) The record shows that the soldier incurred the dislocation of his left arm, for which pension is claimed, while scuffling in the barracks and that he was not in line of duty. 18. Assisting a Teamster. Line of duty. (Henry Miller, 9 P. D., 74.) Claimant, after being relieved from guard duty, assisted a teamster in watering mules. He was not disobeying orders, his act was not in violation of army regulations, but was aiding a comrade in caring for and protecting Government property, and was doing something which he not only had a right to do, but said act was commendable, and resulted, if his allegations are true, in his being fired upon by the enemy and injured, and he was in line of duty. 19. Beath from Drinking Unboiled Water. Line of duty — Death from drinking unboiled water. (Ellen C Taylor, mother, 15 P. D., 315.) Soldier, while engaged in military operations in the enemy's PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 329 country, a hot climate, drank unboiled water, contrary to exist- ing orders. He subsequently died of Asiatic ch )lera, the cause of which is ascribed to drinking contaminated water, "not in line of duty," on account of orders not to drink unboiled water. The evidence does not show said act to be exclusively the cause of the fatal disease, the possible etiological factors thereof being manifold. Held: Soldier's death was incurred in line of duty. Where, in wanton defiance of orders a soldier, having the opportunity of using sterilized water, deliberately drinks un- boiled water under circumstances reasonably to exclude all other pathological factors in accounting for a disease which may appa- ently result from such an act, the incurrence of the resulting dis- ability is not in line of duty. But where a soldier, on a campaign when sterilized water may not be immediately accessible, yields to a natural impulse to satisfy thirst, despite existing orders to drink boiled water only, he is not out of line of duty for pension purposes. ANNOTATION. Unpiihlished decisions involving. — In claim No. 1286694, of John J. Finnegan, Company F, Twenty-second U. S. Infantry, which this Bureau had rejected on the ground of " claimant's inability to furnish satisfactory evidence that the double inguinal hernia alleged had been incurred in service and line of duty," the Secretary reversed the Bureau and held : " Origin of double inguinal hernia in the service and in line of duty is shown by the records of the War Department, and should have been accepted." He also says: "In the absence of any evidence that the disabilities alleged as having been contracted in line of duty and so reported, were not so contracted, it clearly should be assumed that soldier was sound at the date of his enlistment, and that the disabilities reported originated while in said service and while soldier was in line of duty." In claim No. 1227608, of John D. Webb, Company K, Sixth U. S. Infantry, the Secretary also holds : " The company muster- out roll of the company in w^hich soldier served shows that the dis- ability alleged, fracture of left leg, was incurred in line of duty, and it should have been so accepted by the Bureau. Action of rejection reversed." In this claim the injury was received while claimant was tossing a ball, but no witness could be located who witnessed the accident, but the muster-out roll of the company gives him as " sick in hospital," and " line of duty," immediately after accident. The 330 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. report from the medical records show treatment for fracture of leg, at one time showing " in line of duty," and at another time " not in line of duty," but the Secretary holds that the officers of the company should have had more direct knowledge than the officials of the hospital could have had, and that the former should have been accepted. LOCOMOTOE ATAXIA. See Pathological Sequence: No. 16 (14 P. D., 542). LOST WARRANT. See Bounty Land: No. 1 (12 P. D., 184). LOUISIANA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2(p) (11 P. D., 3.39; 12 P. D., .382; 13 P. D., 98; 14 P. D., 344) ; No. 2(p) (1.5 P. D., 5.30) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 393) ; No. 15 (13 P. D., 173). See Tables of State Statutes for 13, 14, and 15 P. D. MAINE LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2(q) (14 P. D., .349) ; No. 4 (13 P. D.. 272). "MAINE," THE See Commencement: No. 11 (12 P. D., 428). MALARIA. See Death Cause: No. 13 (13 P. D., 313). MALARIAL POISONING. See Death Cause: No. 13 (13 P. D., .313). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 6, 16, 22 (12 P. D., 486; 14 P. D., 542; 15P. D., 249). MARITAL DESERTION. See Division of Pension: Nos. 1, 4, 10, 12, 13, 15 (15 P. D., 221; 11 P. D., 260; 12 P. D., 7, 56, 421, 507; 13 P. D., 134, 142, 14.3, 177, 180, 212, 430; 14 P. D., 45, 404, 1.30, 1.59, 191, 394, .521 ; ]5 P. D., 90, 342 ; 15 P. D., 132 ; 13 P. D., 218, 422 ; 13 P. D., 77, 424 ; 14 P. D.. 146; 15 P. D., 298; 15 P. D., 557). MARRIAGE. References. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 6 (14 P. D., 242); No. 7 (14 P. D., 362) ; No. 10 (12 P. D., 258). See Decree of Nullity: Nos. 1, 2, .3, 4, 5. 6. 7 (10 P. D., 238, 284; 11 P. D., 271 ; 13 P. D., 460; 14 P. D., 290 ; 15 P. D., 227. 286, 470). See Dependent Parents: No. 3 (10 P. D., 153; 12 P. D., 24); No. 6 (10 P. D., 244; 12 P. D., 509). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 331 See Divorce: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (10 P. D., 1, 311, 348; 11 P. D., 499 ; 12 P. D. 303, 445, 474 ; 13 P. D., 08, 208, 236 ; 14 P. D., 99, 173, 279, 438, 535; 15 P. D., 128, 174, 278, 553). See Division of Pension: No. 12 (13 P. D., 120, 218, 297) ; No. 13 (15 P. D., 246) ; No. 15 (14 P. D., 230, 234) ; No. 18 (14 P. D., 177; 15 P. D., 136) ; No. 20 (15 P. D., 143). See Estoppel: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (11 P. D., 195, 403; 14 P. D., 469). See Evidence: No. 9 (11 P. D., 102) ; No. 10 (10 P. D., 51). See Insane Persons: No. 2 (15 P. D., 270). See Legitimacy: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 (9 P. D., 199; 11 P. D., 40, 278, 294; 12 P. D., 102; 13 P. D., 414, 541; 14 P. D., 474; 15 P. D., 386). See Limitation: No. 5 (12 P. D., 479). See Minors: No. 2 (13 P. D., 151). See Restoration : Nos. 2 and 4 (12 P. D., 510; 13 P. D., 441). Index. 1. Burden of proof. 2. Laws as to marriage — Cont'd. 2. Laws as to marriage. (gg) Pennsylvania. (a) District of Columbia. (hh) Rhode Island. (b) Arkansas. (ii) South Carolina. (c) Alabama and Arizona (jj) South Dakota. Territory. (kk) Tennessee. (d) California. (11) Texas. (e) Colorado. (mm) Utah. (f) Connecticut. (nn) Vermont. (g) Delaware. (oo) Virginia. (h) Florida. (PP) Washington. (i) (Teorgia. (qq) West Virginia. (j) Idaho. (rr) Wisconsin. (k) Illinois. (ss) Wyoming; also New Mex- (1) Indiana. ico, Cherokee Nation, (m) Iowa. and Choctaw Nation. (n) Kansas. 3. Former marriage no bar. (o) Kentucky. (a) Generally. (p) Louisiana. (b) Claimants' admissions. (q) Maine. (c) Soldiers' admissions. (r) Maryland. 4. Former marriage held a bar. (s) Massachusetts. 5. Fraud. (t) Michigan. 6. Hearsay evidence as to death. (u) Minnesota. 7. Impediment of blood. (v) Mississippi. 8. Indian marriages. • (w) Missouri. 9. Insanity. (x) Montana. 10. Marriage after passage of act June (y) Nebraska. 27, 1890. (y-z) Nevada. 11. Marriage determined by the lex (z) New Hampshire. loci. (aa) New Jersey. 12. Presumption of death. (bb) New York. 13. Presumption of divorce. New Mexico. 14. Remarriage prior to June 27, (cc) North Carolina. 1890. (dd) North Dakota. 15. Slave marriages. (ee) Ohio. 16. Widows' pension act March 19, (ff) Oregon. 1886. 3:^2 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1. Burden of Proof. Marriage — Impediment — Evidence. (Lizzie Yates, widow, 10 P. D.,446.) The mere fact that Yates was a " widower " when he married claimant is assumed to be sufficient ground on which to compel claimant to furnish positive evidence of the death or divorce of the former wife. Held: Claimant having shown a ceremonial marriage, and there not being the shadow of a suspicion (beyond the fact that the officer was a widower) that claimant's marriage was not a lawful one, the burden of proof is upon the Government to shoAv the illegality of such marriage. (Stewart on M. and D., Chap. XVIII.) Marriage — Evidence — Burden of proof. (Henrietta Kirchner. widow, 12 P. D., 296.) Appellant was married to the soldier in legal form in 1882, and lived with him in the relation of husband and wife from the date of such marriage to the date of his death in 1896, leaving three children, the result of said union. Appellant was never married prior to her marriage to soldier, and no evidence appears in the case tending to show that soldier was ever previously married, but all the evidence in the case show^s that he was known only as a single man or bachelor. It is held that the marriage thus shown was subject to attack only on clear and satisfactory evi- dence of a want of capacity of the husband, which in this case has not been shown, and claimant's marriage to soldier is shown to have been legal and she is his widow. Marriage and divorce — Emdence — Burden of proof — Dirision of pension — Act March 3, 1899. (Strunk v. Button and Strunk, 14 P. D., 17.) It is a rule of evidence recognized and enforced by the State and Federal courts generally that a party attacking a duly estab- lished marriage on the ground that one of the parties to such marriage was incompetent to contract the marriage by reason of a prior subsisting marriage, must not only prove a valid prior marriage, but also that it has not been dissolved at'the time of the second marriage, even though it involves the proving of a nega- tive; that every presumption is in favor of the validity of the established marriage, and these presumptions must be overcome by satisfactory irrefragable proof, the burden of proof being upon the party attacking the marriage. Marriage and divorce — Division of pension — Act March 3, J 899. (Willie v. Wilson, alias Willie, 14 P. D., 43.) The evidence in this case fairly shows that claimant was mar- I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 333 ried to pensioner in Cook County, 111., May 31, 1888; that he deserted her in 1896, and that she is a woman of good moral character and in necessitous circumstances. Pensioner contends that his marriage to claimant was illegal because he had previously married one Venelia C. Hart, from whom he was never divorced on his application, although ad- mitting that he did not know whether she had obtained a divorce or was alive at the date of his marriage to and separation from claimant. The law presumes in favor of innocence in support of a duly established marriage, and the party attacking the validity of such a marriage on the ground that one of the parties to such marriage was incompetent to contract the marriage by reason of a prior subsisting marriage, must not only prove a valid prior marriage, but also prove that it had not been dissolved at the time of the second marriage even though it involves the proving of a negative. 2. Laws as to Marriage. (a) District of Columbia. Marriage — District of Columbia. (Henry Higgins, deceased; Annie Higgins, widow. 10 P. D., 110.) 1. The rates of pension allowed in the deceased soldier's claim were in accordance with the certificates of medical examination therein. \ 2. A marriage per verba de presenti was valid at common law, and is valid Avithin the District of Columbia. (Thomas v. Holtz- man, 18 D. C, 62; Meister v. Moore, 96 U. S., 76.) Marriage — District of Columbia — Iowa. (Maria McCarthy, widow, 10 P. D., 118.) 1. A statute regulating the forms of marriage is merely direc- tory, and -unless it contains an express clause of nullity a mar- riage valid at common law is valid under such a statute. 2. The statutes in force in the District of Columbia contain no express clause of nullity, and a marriage valid at common law is valid in the District of Columbia. 3. A marriage valid at common law is valid in the State of Iowa. (See case of Annie Dennis, 9 P. D., 243.) Marriage — District of Columbia — Evidence. (Bridget Butler, widow, 13 P. D., 234.) Whether the claimant and soldier were married in Ireland or not, there is sufficient proof of common -law marriage in the Dis- trict of Columbia; therefore the claim was improperly rejected. 334 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. (b) Arkansas. See Divorce; No. 2 (11 P. D., -Km;). See Legitimacy; No. 5 (12 P. D.. 102). See Marriage: No. 2 (ii) (15 P. D., 540). Marriage — ^4 rkansas — E ridence — Pi^esmnption of capacity. ( Mol- lie Dunn, widow, 15 P. D., 223.) The presumption of the validity of a subsequent marriage in Arkansas is so strong that proof of a prior marriage of either party, undissolved by death or divorce five years before said subsequent marriage, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the parties to said last marriage had full capacity to con- tract it. Marriage — Arkansas — Legitimacy — Impediment — Minors. (Minor of Elisha Dobbs, 15 P. D., 488.) The legitimacy of a child for pensionable purposes is depend- ent upon the marital status of its parents, and this must be deter- mined under the act of August 7, 1882, or under section 4704, Revised Statutes. A State statute as to legitimacy of children has no force in pension claims. (Minor of Edw^ard Plount, 14 P. D.,428.) A presumption of remarriage after the removal of an impedi- ment to an attempted marriage does not prevail in Arkansas, even Avhen the continued cohabitation, though illicit, was not meretricious on the part of one or both of the parties thereto. (c) Alabama. See 10 P. D., 293, and Laws of. (d) Arizona. See Divorce : No. 2 (11 P. D., 226). (e) California. See Marriage: No. 11 (15 P. D., 459). See 11 P. D.. 144 ; 14 P. D., 260. See -Laws of ; also Tables of State Statutes for 11, 14, and 15 P. D. Marriage and divorce — California — Evidence, (Rachel J. Sebas- tian, widow, 11 P. D., 144.) In the absence of consent the mutual assumption of marital rights, duties, arid obligations can not, under the statutes of Cali.- fornia, constitute marriage. Marriage and divorce — California — Limitation — Nullity — Decree. (Bridget Shay, mother, 14 P. D., 265.) Appellant's claim was rejected on the ground that her son, the sailor, left a widow surviving him, who is now a pensioner. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 335 Sailor was married to Lola B. Worth at Pasadena, Cal., March 7, 1898. She had previously been married, but her husband procured a divorce from her in Cook County, 111., on November 20, 1897, three months and fifteen days prior to her marriage to sailor. An amendment of the California Code, passed in 1901, provided that the subsequent marriage of any person during the lifetime of a former husband or wife is illegal and void from the beginning, unless — 1. The former has. been annulled or dissolved by a decree entered at least one year prior to such subsequent marriage. 2. Unless such former husband or wife was absent or was gen- erally reputed * * * to be dead at the time such subsequent marriage was contracted ; in either of which cases the subsequent marriage is valid until its nullity is adjudged by a competent tribunal. Held : 1. That as it does not appear that the marriage referred to was ever annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, the presumption is that sailor left a lawful wife surviving him. 2. That as the limitation prescribed by the California code was not enacted until after the marriage in question, the same has no application thereto. Marriage — Califormia laws — Presumption of death — Evidence, (Rosannah Cash, widow, 15 P. D., 103.) The claimant remarried after more than five years had elapsed since she had heard from her former husband, and in the honest and warranted belief that he was dead. Held: She is not the widow^ of the soldier, under the laws of the State of California, said State being the forum in which the issue must be decided. (Sec. 61, Civil Code of Cal.; Jackson v. Jackson, 94 Cal., 436.) (e) Colorado. See Divorce: No. 2 (10 P. D., 434) ; No. 9 (15 P. D., 553). Marriage — Colorado — Impediment — Presumption of death. (Mary A. Woodward, widow, 15 P. D., 253.) 1. A common-law marriage is valid in Colorado. 2. Where a man and woman are formally married, in igno- rance of the fact that an impediment to valid marriage exists, and thereafter cohabit as man and wife and hold themselves out as such, a valid marriage will arise upon the removal of th(3 impediment during such cohabitation. 3. Soldier's first wife filed a claim for pension in August, 1870, and was never afterwards heard from by the Bureau, and on diligent inquiry no person was found who would have been likely to have heard of or from her if living, and, no informa- 336 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. tion as to her being alive since that date having been obtained, her death is presumed. Marriage — Colorado — Divorce — Evidence — Cohabitation. ( Ella S. Hawley, widow, 15 P. D., 493.) Soldier deserted his wife and children in Illinois in 187() and eloped with claimant. His wife was divorced from him in 1879, and he and claimant cohabited and were recognized as husband and wife in Colorado until his death in 1891. It is held that the relations of these parties were meretricious to the end, as claimant repeatedly refused his offer of marriage at a time when he was competent to contract. (f) Connecticut. Marriage — Connecticut laws — Evidence — Impediment. (Eliza Boazman, widow, 14 P. D., 355.) There is record evidence of claimant's marriage to the soldier on December 17, 18()8, in the State of Connecticut, and it is shown that- the parties lived and cohabited together as husband and wife thereafter until soldier's death, six years later. Claimant admits a prior marriage many years ago, but swears that said first husband went away and never returned, and she was in- formed about the close of the war that he was dead, a newspaper notice of his death having been read to her. Under the laws of Connecticut, a marriage being proved by competent evidence, the law raises a presumption in fa\'or of its legality, and such previous marriage did not cast the burden upon the claimant of proving either that the former husband was dead or, if living, that a legal divorce had been granted. Marriage — Connecticut — New York — Illinois — Impediment. (Sarah A. Bartlett, widow, 15 P. D., 290.) A marriage per A^erba de praesenti is not a lawful marriage in Connecticut, where the right to pension accrued. But evidence of cohabitation and reputation is competent in proof of the fact of a lawful marriage. It being possible that a common-law marriage arose between soldier and claimant, in either Xew York or Illinois, after the removal of the impediment to the legality of their formal mar- riage in Xew York, the case is remanded for further evidence as to the character of their cohabitation in said last-mentioned States. (g) Delaware. See 14 P. D., 527, 528. See Laws of, and Table of " State Statutes " for 14 P. D. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 337 Marriage — Laws of Delaware — Ceremony — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Frances Hopkins, widow, 14 P. D., 527.) Claimant and soldier lived together from a date subsequent to the civil war to about the years 1897 or 1898, when they were married by a ceremony. Some positive act or ceremony is necessary to render valid a marriage contract in the State of Delaware. (Revised Code State of Delaware, chap. 74, sec. 2; Jackson v. Benjamin Collins, 2 Houston, 128; State i;. Miller, 3 Pennewill, 518.) (h) Florida. See Marriage: No. 15 (14 P. D., 383). See Laws of, and Table of " State Statutes " for 14 P. D. Marriage — Slaves — Laws of Florida — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Bet- tie Rankins, widow, 14 P. D., 383.) The slave marriage between claimant and sailor was of no force or effect under the laws of Florida, where they resided, there hav- ing been no cohabitation between them after their emancipation. (i) Georgia. No case, (j) Idaho. No case, (k) Illinois. See Divorce: No. 1 (10 P. D., 1) ; No. 2 (13 P. D., 68) ; No. 3 (11 P. D.,406). See Marriage: No. 1 (14 P. D., 43) ; No. 2(d) (14 P. D., 265) ; No. . 2(f) (15 P. D., 290) ; No. 2(u) (15 P. D., 236) ; No. 3(a) (lOP.IX, 294; 11 P. D., 320) ; No. 4 (12 P. D., 326) ; No. 12 (14 P. D., 442; 9 P. D., 243; 11 P. D., 43). Marriage and Divorce — Laws of Illinois — I ni pediment. (Eliza B. Wilson, widow, 12 P. D., 481.) In this case soldier married claimant while he had an undi- vorced wife living, of which claimant was ignorant. Three months after such marriage soldier procured a decree of divorce from his first wife, evidencing his desire to remove any impedi- ment to such marriage. Held: That these facts warrant a special examination to deter- mine the facts as to when soldier filed his bill for divorce, the date of the default decree, and all facts bearing on the intention of the parties to live in the relation of husband and wife subse- quent to the removal of the impediment to their legal marriage, 13070—06 22 338 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. distinguishing this case from that of Cartwright et al. v. McGown (121 111., 388). Marriage — Illinois — Presumption — Divorce — Evidence. (Rachel Hays, formerly Collier, widow, 15 P. D., 186.) 1. The dissolution of a former marriage by divorce will be pre- sumed to validate a subsequent marriage. 2. Where parties to a marriage in good faith intend matri- mony, not concubinage, and contract such marriage in ignorance that an impediment exists, the fact that they live together after the removal of said impediment, with the continued desire and intention of being married, is sufficient proof of a common-law marriage. Cartwright v. McGown (121 111., 388) distinguished; Manning v. Spurck (199 111., 447) followed. Case of Mary B. McCollum (6 P. D., 93) distinguished. (1) Indiana. See Decbee of Nullity: No. 3 (11 P. D., 271). See Divorce: No. 3 (11 P. D., 226) ; No. 4 (13 P. D., 236) ; No. 5 (15 P. D., 278) ; No. 10 (15 P. D., 389). See Division of Pensions: No. 12 (13 P. D., 218). See Marriage: Nos. 4, 5 (9 P. D., 5: 10 P. D., 258). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 11, and 15 P. D. Marriage — Divorce — Laws of Indiana — Evidence — Death. (Christena E. Allburn, widow, 13 P. D., 333.) It is settled law in Indiana that when a marriage has been con- summated in accordance with the forms of law it is presumed that no legal impediment existed to the parties entering into such marriage, and the fact, if shown, that either or both of the parties have been previously married, and that such wife or hus- band of the first marriage is still living, does not destroy the prima facie legality of the last marriage. The presumption in such cases is that the former marriage has been legally dissolved and the burden that it was not rests upon the party seeking to impeach the last marriage. (Wenning et al. v. Teeple et al., 144 Ind., 189.) Marriage — Indiana — Presumption — Divorce — Evidence. (Sarah J. Shadle, widow, 15 P. D., 229.) Soldier, prior to his marriage to claimant in Indiana, was the husband of one Mary, who deserted him fourteen years previous . to said marriage to Sarah. Mary was last heard of in ^1877. Dissolution of said marriage, either by death of Mary or by divorce, is presumed. The marriage to claimant is therefore valid. Following the case of Christena E. Allburn (13 P. D., 333) and cases therein cited, and Franklin v. Lee (30 Ind. Ap., 31). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 339 (m) loWA. See Divorce: No. 2 (15 P. D., 174). See Marriage: No. 2 (a) (10 P. D., 118; 9 P. D., 243). See 10 P. D., 123 ; 11 P. D., 74. See Laws of, and Tables of State Statutes for 10 aud 11 P. D. (n) Kansas. See Marriage: No. 2 (y) (15 P. D., 211). Marriage and divorce — Impediment — Kansas. (Elizabeth Lock-, wood, widow, 11 P. D., 97.) The deceased soldier married the appellant by ceremony in the State of Kansas in 1875, at a time when he had a former wife living, who subsequently obtained a divorce from him in the State of Michigan in 1877, which facts were unknown to the appellant during the lifetime of the soldier. The appellant and the soldier lived together continuously as husband and wife in the State of Kansas, united in church membership . as husband and wife, joined in the execution of deeds and conveyances as husband and wife, and were so recognized by their relatives, friends, and neighbors from and after the removal of the impedi- ment to their marriage in 1877 up to the date of the soldier's death in 1898, a period of twenty-one years. Held: That under the laws of the State of Kansas, where the parties resided, a valid common-law marriage will be pre- sumed to have been contracted by them after the removal of the. impediment to their lawful union. (State r. Walker, 3() Kan., 297; State v. Hughes, 35 Kan., 626; State c. McFarland, 38 Kan., 664 ; Matney v. Linn, 59 Kan., 613 ; and Shorten o. Judd, 60 Kan., 73.) (o) Kentucky. See Legitimacy: Nos. 4, 7 (14 P. D., 474, 15; P. D., 380). See Marriage: No. 12 (12 P. D., 292) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 157, 441; 12 P.D., 150, 447). See Tables of State Statutes for 10, 12, 13, and 14 P. I). See also Laws of, and 10 P. D., 158, 442 ; 12 P. D., 440, lt)2 ; 13 P. D., 05. Marriage and divorce — Laws of Kentucky. (Maggie Merrimaii, widow, 12 P. D., 439.) As claimant had a husband living when she married tlie sol- dier, such marriage was void, and as a common-law marriage is not sanctioned by the laws of Kentucky, no marriage between claimant and soldier subsequent to the removal of the impedi- ment to their marriage can be presumed. Divorce — Cohabitation — Husband and wife — Marriage. (Lettia Glover, widow, 12 P. D., 497.) The evidence shows that the claimant applied for a divorce 340 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. from the soldier and a legal decree was subsequently issued by the Mason County circuit court, in the State of Kentucky, on January 13, 1883. The evidence further shows that she con- tinued to cohabit and live with the soldier as his wife, in Mays- ville, Ky., up to the date of his death. Held: That as she was once legally divorced, and common- law marriages are not valid in the State of Kentucky, she is not the legal Avidow of the soldier, and therefore is not entitled to pension under the act of June 27, 1890. (See case of Mary Munsel, 9 P. D., 30.) Marriage — Evidence — Presumption of death — Kentucky. (Nancy Nolen, widow, 13 P. D., 64.) A marriage duly and formally entered into is presumed to be valid, and slight evidence is held sufficient to warrant a finding of fact that death of a prior consort occurred within a period of seven years prior to such marriage, when such fact is essen- tial to make it valid. (p) Louisiana. See Marriage: No. 4 (10 P. D., 393) ; No. 15 (13 P. D., 173). See Laws of : See 13 P. D., 100, 101, 103 ; 14 P. D., 344. See Tables and State Statutes for 13, 14, and 1.5 P. D. Marriage in Louisiana — Evidence — Presumptions. (Minna Wil- son, widow, 11 P. D., 339.) There being no proof or facts warranting the presumption of a prior marriage by the soldier, and the undisputed evidence showing that claimant and soldier lived and cohabited together as man and wife for eleven years in the State of Louisiana, the law of that State would presume them married, and the claimant is therefore entitled to pension as the lawful widow of the soldier. Marriage and divorce — Laws of Louisiana — Gontraxit. (Francoise Gabriel, 12 P. D., 382.) Under the law^s of the State of Louisiana the claimant is held to have been the lawful wife of the soldier from the year 1880 up to the time of his death, on January 4, 1898. About the year 1880, both parties being able to consent and able to contract, mutually agreed to enter the state of matrimony. From that 'time to the date of the soldier's death they lived together and cohabited as man and wife, and as such held themselves out to the world. During that whole period they were regarded as man and wife by neighbors and friends among whom they lived. Marriage — Louisiana — Good faith — Putative marriage. (Peggy Thomas, widow, 13 P. D., 98.) 1. Under the laws of Louisiana a putative second marriage is I PEKSTON AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 341 in all respects and to all intents and purposes a valid marriage until actually declared by a competent court to be null and void, and if not so declared prior to the death of one of the parties thereto, it may not be after the death of such party so as to affect any rights existing at the time of death based on such marriage. Therefore claimant having married the soldier in good faith, believing her former husband to be dead (no information to the contrary appearing), such marriage was sufficient to constitute her his widow for pensionable purposes. 2. As claimant is shown to have been guilty since about May 11, 1892, of open and notorious adulterous cohabitation, pen- sion allowable under her claim filed September 1, 1891, under the act of June 27, 1890, should be terminated, and her claims filed subsequent to May 11, 1892, should be rejected on the ground of such cohabitation. Marriage — Louisiana laws — Act June 27, 1890. (Maggie Davis, widow, 14 P. D., 344.) Claimant and soldier commenced to live together by common consent about the year 1882, and were married by ceremony in 1891. Held: A marriage by ceremony is necessary in the State of Louisiana (Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 91; Holmes /'. Holmes, 6 La., 463 ; Powers /\ Executors, 35 La. An., 630 ; Blasini et al. v. The Succession, 30 La. An., 1368). That part of the opinion in the case of Francoise Gabriel (12 P. D., 382) which holds a cere- mony not to be essential is hereby expressly overruled. Marriage — Louisiana — Impediment — Civil code — Putative mar- riage. (Martha Alex or Alec, widow, 15 P. D., 530.) Claimant married soldier in Louisiana at a time when she had a living, undivorced husband. Such a marriage is forbidden by the code of said State. A widow's right to pension is based upon the lawfulness of her marriage to soldier. A putative marriage in Louisiana is not a lawful marriage in this sense. It is not even a voidable mar- riage, but one null and void ab initio, albeit under the code it may produce civil effects as to the party acting in good faith. But right to pension is not one of these civil effects. (Case of Peggy Thomas, 13 P. D., 98, overruled in part.) (q) Maine. See Maeriage: No. 4 (13 P. D., 272). Marriage — Maine — Impediment — Evidence. (Abbie M. Manson, alleged widow, 14 P. D., 349.) The evidence shows that claimant's marriage to the deceased sailor was invalid, as he then had a living wife, and that claim- 342 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ant knew, or was in possession of facts that would cause a reason- ably prudent person to ascertain, that such marriage would be void. The consequent cohabitation was therefore meretricious as well as adulterous. Held: That in Maine cohabitation under the form of mar- riage, meretricious at its outset, still remains so after the removal of an existing impediment unless a new contract is entered into. Continued cohabitation will not afford a legal presumption of a subsequent marriage. (r) Maryland. See Legitimacy: No. 2 (11 P. D., 278). See Marriage: No. 15 (1.3 P. D., 70). See Laws of; also Tarles of State Statutes for 0, 10, 11, 13, and 14 P. D. See 10 P. D., 113, .304, .307, 432; 11 P. D., 279, 280, 281; 13 P. D., ni, 52, 73 ; 14 P. D., 348. Marriage and divorce— Evidence. (Rebecca Wiley, widow, 10 P. D., 304.) First. Under the Maryland decisions the same proof of cohab- itation, general reputation, and acknowledgment that will estab- lish a marriage good at common law w411 establish the presump- tion of a religious ceremonial marriage in that State. (Richard- son V, Smith, 80 Md., 89; Redgrave v. Redgrave, 38 Md., 97; Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Md., 176; S. C, 82 Md., 17; Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md., 251, and Jones v. Jones, 48 Md., 391.) Second. The evidence in this case fairly establishes a valid marriage of the claimant and soldier under the laws of Mary- land, even assuming the decision of the supreme court of that State in the case of Denison v, Denison (35 Md., 361) to be a correct construction of the Maryland statutes. Marriage — Evidence — Maryland, (Mollie Purnell, widow, 10 P. D., 431.) It is only when a party relies upon a valid marriage ceremony that, under the Maryland decisions, the same proof of cohabita- tion, general reputation, and acknowledgment which will estab- lish a marriage good at common law will establish the presump- tion of a religious ceremonial marriage in that State. Marriage — Evidence — Maryland. (Eliza Chase, widow, 13 P. D., 49.) Common-law marriages have not been and are not recognized as valid in Maryland, but while there can not be a valid marriage without a religious .ceremony, such marriage may be proved without the testimony of witnesses who were present at the cere- mony ; that is, by general reputation, cohabitation, and acknowl- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 343 edgment. When these exist it will be inferred that a religious ceremony has taken place, and this proof will not be invalidated because evidence can not be obtained of the time, place, and manner of the celebration of the marriage. (Richardson v. Smith, 80 Md., 1889.) In this case it is shown that soldier cohabitated with one Harriet Bordley prior to his marriage to claimant, such cohabi- tation was terminated many years ago, and soldier's friends and relatives, who lived but a short distance from him, were ignorant of any marriage to the Bordley woman. Cohabitation alone, under the circumstances of this case, will not warrant the pre- sumption of a marriage by a religious ceremony between soldier and Harriet Bordley, and claimant must therefore he held to be soldier's widow. Marriage — Maryland laws — Evidence — Presumption. (Amelia K. Shanaman, widow, 14 P. D., 530.) No record of the marriage of claimant and soldier, nor of a license to marry can be found, but claimant swears that they were secretly married in Baltimore, Md., by a Methodist min- ister, according to the Methodist ceremonial rites, and the soldier in his lifetime deposed before a special examiner that he and claimant were married by a minister named Smith, in Balti- more, Md. The evidence shows that immediately thereafter they announced to their family and friends that they were mar- ried, and within a week of the date of the alleged marriage soldier and claimant commenced housekeeping and lived and cohabitated together as husband and wife, and were so recog- nized by their relatives and acquaintances from that time until soldier's death. Held: That under the decisions of the Maryland court of appeals which hold that " where parties live together ostensibly " as husband and wife " and are received into society and treated by their friends and relations as having and being entitled to that status, the law will presume * * * that they have been legally married," claimant is the widow of the deceased soldier. Marriage — Maryland — Evidence — Cohabitation and repute. (Jo- hanna Hattersheim, widow, 15 P. D., 464.) This claim is based upon an alleged common-law marriage as springing into existence, by operation of law wholly by reason of a few hours temporary sojourn, without the incidents of mar- ital cohabitation, in the District of Columbia, the parties being actually domiciled in the State of Maryland, where a common- law marriage is not valid. Held: Marriage as a status is established as of contract. In 344 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the absence of direct proof, indirect evidence afforded by proof of marital cohabitation, acknowledgment, and recognition is admissible in proof of marriage. Those elements do not con- stitute a common-law marriage, but merely evince the fact that a mutual exchange of consents to create that status has taken place. Where parties illicitly cohabiting in a State where a ceremony is essential to the validity of marriage remain temporarily in a State where a marriage per verba de prsesenti is lawful, it is possible for them to contract a common-law marriage therein; but a new contract will not be presumed merely from their pres- ence in said State. The fact must be shown either by direct proof or by evidence of matrimonial cohabitation, acknowledg- ment, and recognition within the jurisdiction of the common-law State. Otherwise the subsequent cohabitation of the parties in the place of their domicile must be viewed in the light of their original relation. (s) Massachusetts. See Divorce: No. 3 (10 P. D., 434) ; No. 6 (12 P. D., 445; 14 P. D., 438). See Tables of State Statutes for 11, 12, 14, and 15 P. D. See Laws of, and 11 P. D., 116 ; 14 P. D., 456. Marriage and divorce — Impediment — Massachusetts. (Emma C. Sanders, now Stewart, widow, 11 P. D., 114.) Claimant married soldier in 1856 and lived with him as his wife in the State of Massachusetts until his second enlistment, December 18, 1863. Not having heard from her said husband since 1864 and believing him to be dead, she married one Stewart, in the State of Massachusetts, in November, 1870, and lived and cohabited with him as his wife, in said State (both believing said marriage to have been legal), until his death, which occurred August 16, 1889. The soldier died in the Soldiers' Home in Chelsea, Mass., December 18, 1882. Held: That under the laws and decisions of the State of Mas- sachusetts claimant's ceremonial marriage to Stewart was void, and that she was the wife of Sanders until his death in 1882, when she became his widow, but she and Stewart having lived together as husband and wife from the death of Sanders to the death of Stewart, each desiring to be and believing that they were husband and wife, they are deemed and held to have legally sustained the relation of husband and wife, and were such under the laws of that State from the death of Sanders to the death of said Stewart, when she became Stewart's lawful widow, and there being no pensionable period of widowhood between the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 345 death of Sanders and the time she became the wife of Stewart the rejection of her claim for pension on account of the death of Sanders was proper and is affirmed. Marriage in Massachusetts — C ohahitation and repute — Evidence. (Mary E. Draper, widow, 14 P. D., 456.) 1. A common-law marriage, i. e., a contract per verba prse- senti, no third party participating as a magistrate or minister, or one believed to be such by the parties, neither of whom is a Quaker, is not a valid marriage in Massachusetts. (Overruling case of Emma C. Sanders, 11 P. D., 114.) 2. General repute or cohabitation of the parties as married persons is evidence by which a marriage, validly contracted, may be proved. Marnage — Massachusetts — Impediment — Retroactive laws. ( Sarah M. Reed, widow, 15 P. D., 462.) The act of May 29, 1895 (Massachusetts Rev. Laws, 1902, ch. 151, sec. 0), whereby a marriage relation begun in good faith, although void by reason of an impediment, is validated from and after the removal of said impediment if the parties continue to cohabit as husband and wife, in good faith upon the part of one at least, will be applied in pension cases only where the im- pediment was removed and the subsequent cohabitation took place after the passage of the act. <^Lufkin v. Lufkin, 182 Mass., 476.) (t) Michigan. See Divorce: No. 7 (12 P. D., 303). See Dependent Parents: No. 4 (11 P. D., 297). See Marriage: No. 2 (n) (11 P. D., J)7) ; No. 3 (a) (9 P. D., 139) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 220) ; No. 12 (12 P. D., 348). See Laws of, and 10 P. D., 195. See Tarles of State Statutes for 10, 11, 12, and 13 P. D. Marriage — E Mence — Impediment — Cohabitation. ( Mary Schil- ling, widow, 14 P. D., 417.) Claimant was married to the deceased soldier in Michigan in 1887. The evidence shows that prior to that time, from 1862 to about 1870, in the State of Pennsylvania, the soldier cohabited w^ith one Anna Maria, and that four children were born to them during that period. There is no evidence that an actual mar- riage was entered into, and the cohabitation ceased without legal separation. Both remarried, and all the facts and circumstances indicate that no contract of marriage was made. Under the facts in this case a marriage contract will not be presumed. The soldier, therefore, was competent to enter into a contract of mar- riage at the date he married claimant. 346 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Marriage — Impediment — Age — Evidence — Michigan laws. (Jen- nie Atherton, widow, 14 P. D., 554.) Claimant married soldier, by ceremony, on March 21, 1869, cohabiting with him as his wife, in the State of Michigan, till his death on March 28, 1899. She had previously, when proba- bly under age, married one Townsend, and it is also probable Townsend had, at the time, a living undivorced wife. Townsend died December 25, 1875. Held : Under the statement of facts a marriage between claim- ant and soldier must be presumed. (Barker v. Valentine, 125 Mich., 336.) The opinion in the case of Harriet Comstock (10 P. D., 220), so far as it conflicts with the holding in the case of Barker v. Valentine, is hereby expressly overruled. Marriage — Michigan — Divorce — Evidence — Illicit cohabitation — PresiiTYiption of continuous illicit cohabitation. (Amanda M. Coon, widow, 15 P. D., 240.) Claimant assumed apparent marital relations with soldier in Michigan at a time w^hen she was the w4fe of one Blades. Blades secured a divorce from claimant the year following her alleged marriage to soldier, of which fact claimant was not cognizant until years after soldier's death. After a cohabitation, desultory in character, soldier and claimant separated and were not living together in any relation at the time of his death or for years prior thereto. Held : That the evidence is not sufficient to rebut the pre- sumption that the illicit nature of their original relation con- tinued to exist after the removal of the bar to marriage; hence no common-law marriage arose between them and she is not his widow. Distinguishing the case of Jennie Atherton (14 P. D., 554) and other cognate cases. (u) Minnesota. See Marriage: No. 4 (10 P. D., 220). See Table of State Statutes for 15 P. D. Marriage — Illinois — Minnesota — Presumption of marriage — Evi- dence — Division of pension — Act of March 3, 1899. (Wright v. Wright, 15 P. D., 236.) Under the law of Minnesota, as construed by the courts of that State, marriage is a civil contract to the validity of which, in law, the consent of parties capable, in law, of contracting is alone essential. The presumption that a cohabitation illicit in its inception re- mains such in character during its continuance is one of fact and not of law. I !» PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 347 The policy of the law favors matrimony rather than concubi- nage, and hence every reasonable presumption should be allowed to support the former and to defeat the latter. Admission, general reputation, and cohabitation, or any other circumstantial or presumptive evidence from which marriage may be inferred, are competent under the statutes of Minnesota. Claimant and pensioner were ceremonially married in the State of Illinois October 11, 1874, seventeen days prior to his being divorced from his former wife, and resided in the States of Min- nesota and Illinois as husband and wife. Held: That under the laws of Illinois and Minnesota a valid marriage between claimant and pensioner, subsequent to the removal of the legal impediment to their marriage, is established by proof of their consent, cohabitation, and general reputation. (v) Mississippi. See Marriage: No. 4 (10 P. D., 393) ; No. T (9 P. D., 127) ; No. 5 (1.5 P. D., 11). See Tables of State Statutes for 10, 13, 14, and 15 P. D. See Laws of. and 10 P. D., 10() ; 13 P. D., 58 ; 14 P. D., 477. Marriage and divorce — Impediment. (Minerva Brown, widow, 11 P. D., 266.) It being' shown that at the time of this claimant's formal mar- riage in 1876 to the soldier herein she had a former husband liv- ing and undivorced from her, or she from him, such marriage was invalid and void; but as she and soldier then married in entire good faith, believing in her legal competency to marry, and cohabited thereafter continuously for twenty-one years, eleven of which were subsequent to the death of her former husband, each continuing until the soldier's death in the belief of their legal , union, holding themselves out as man and wife, and being generally accepted as such, it is held that there was, under the laws of the State of Mississippi, where she and soldier resided at the time of his death, a lawful and valid marriage between them subsequent to the death of said former husband, and that she is, therefore, the soldier's lawful widow. Marriage and Divorce — Mississippi — Impediment. (Bettie Ogden, alleged widow, 13 P. D., 57.) Prior to soldier's cohabitation with the claimant, and prior to and at the time of the ratification of the constitution of Missis- sippi, December 1, 1869, he was living in the relation of husband and wife with one Amanda, who was still living at the time of soldier's death. Held: That under the constitution of Mississippi Amanda was soldier's legal wife, and his cohabitation with claimant unlawful, and she is not his legal widow. 348 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Marriage — Mississippi laws — Cohabitation. (Amanda Taylor, now Robinson, widow, 14 P. D., 476.) Widow was formally married to soldier in 1870 in Mississippi. Prior to that date she cohabited for some time with one Shaw, with whom she was living at the time of the adoption of the con- stitution of that State, December 1, 1869. The evidence does not show a matrimonial intention characterizing her cohabitation with said Shaw. Held: That the effect of article 12, section 22, of said consti- tution was not to force the marital estate upon those not intend- ing it, albeit they were cohabitating like husband and wife on the date of its adoption. Her relations with Shaw not being matri- monial, she had full capacity to contract the marriage with soldier, and is therefore his w idow. (w) Missouri. See Division of Pension: No. 13 (15 P. D., 240). See Divorce: No. 2 (1.3 P. D., 68) ; No. 5 (11 P. D., 40.^)). See Legitimacy: No. (13 P. D., 414). See Marriage: No. 2(kk) (10 P. D., .328) ; No. 3(a) (10 P. D., 294) ; (12 P. D., 106) ; No. 12 (9 P. D., 243; 14 P. D., 442) ; No. 13 (14 P. D., 497) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 362; 14 P. D., 491). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, P. D. See Laws of, and 10 P. D., 30>4 ; 14 P. I)., 491. Marriage — Evidence — Impediment — Presumption. ( Catherine Jacobs, widow, 13 P. D., 59.) Claimant and soldier continued to live and cohabit together as husband and wife for ten years after the death of his first wife and up to the time of his death, during which time and for fifteen years prior thereto they w^ere generally reputed and ac- knowledged to be husband and wife. Held : That under the laws of Missouri a contract of marriage between the parties subsequent to the death of soldier's first wife may be presumed, and hereby is presumed, and appellant is the lawful widow of soldier. Marriage — Divorce — Evidence — Cohahitation and repute. (Eliza A. Spradlin, widow, 15 P. D., 86.) Claimant and soldier w^ere ceremonially married in 1879. In 1880 she obtained a divorce from him. Shortly thereafter they resumed their former relations in the State of Missouri, no cere- monial marriage again being performed. The case is remanded for further special examination to secure as evidence of a com- mon-law marriage the general repute, etc., of the parties. (x) Montana. No case. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 349 (y) Nebraska. Marriage — Kansas — Nebraska — Impediment — Divorce — Fraud — Evidence — Good faith — Legitimacy. (Cressie L. Anderson, alleged minor, 15 P. D., 211.) (1) Soldier and the mother of the claimant, Mary, were mar- ried in Kansas on October 14, 1893. He then had a wife, Lydia, living in Nebraska, from whom he obtained a divorce in Kansas on November 16, 1893. No subsequent ceremonial marriage was performed. Soldier died in Nebraska, where right to pension consequently accrued. Lydia brought suit in a Nebraska court, after soldier's death, to which Mary was made a party, although she did not appear and defend her title to recognition as the widow of the soldier. The Nebraska court decided that the divorce obtained in Kansas was fraudulent and void, holding Lydia to be the widow of the soldier. According to the law of the place where right to pension accrued, claimant has no title to pension. (2) As soldier had no capacity to contract marriage with Mary, Lydia being still his wife, alive and undivorced, his relations with Mary were illicit in their inception. Even if said divorce is valid in Kansas, no common-law marriage in said State, sub- sequent to said suppositive removal of the impediment, can be presumed, as the element of good faith on the part of the soldier is disproved by the evidence. Claimant, therefore, has no title according to the law of the place where the alleged marriage took place. [yz) Neyada. No case. \z) New Hampshire. See Tables of State Statutes for 12, 13, and 15 P. D. See Laws of, and 12 P. D., 440; 13 P. D., 215. Marriage — New Hampshire — Evidence, (Clara M. Rumrill, widow, 13 P. D., 213.) A ceremonial marriage is not necessary in New Hampshire. Where parties have cohabited and have acknowledged them- selves as husband and wife and are generally reputed to be such for the period of three years and until the death of either party, they shall be deemed to have been lawfully married. In the case on appeal the decedent's acknowledgment of claimant as his wife was qualified, and they were not generally reputed to be husband and wife, nor was she regarded as his widow by the probate court for the county Avithin which the parties resided. Not having been regarded as soldier's widow 350 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. by a court of competent authority in New Hampshire, she can not be regarded as his widow for pension purposes. Marriage — New Hampshire — Presumption of death. (Mary F. Collins, widow, 15 P. D., 258.) Claimant married one Mordaiint in New Hampshire in 1871. He disappeared the day subsequent to said marriage and has never since been heard of. Soldier and claimant were ceremo- nially married in said State in 1890. Held: That the presumption of the innocency of the parties to the second marriage rebuts the presumption of the duration of Mordaunt's life beyond the term of seven years from his disap- pearance. The second marriage was therefore valid and claim- ant is the widow of the soldier. (aa) New Jersey. See Table of State Statutes for 15 P. D. Marriage — Evidence — Laws of New Jersey. (Martha Arose, as widow, 13 P. D., 403). (1) Where an actual marriage is shown, whether legal or illegal, the subsequent cohabitation of the parties and their repu- tation as husband and wife must necessarily be understood as having had their origin in such marriage and can not be treated as presumptive evidence of a second marriage at a later date. (Voorhees v. Voorhees, 46 N. J. Eq., 411 ; Collins v. Voorhees, 47 N. J. Eq., 555.) (2) Where parties have intended marriage, not adultery, being ignorant of an existing impediment, all that is to be established by cohabitation, apparently matrimonial, after the removal of the impediment, is the execution of the original purpose of the par- ties. In that case the marriage relation is established from the removal of the impediment. But the matrimonial intention of the parties must be unmistakably manifest, and it must defi- nitely appear that in fact they were honestly ignorant of the existence of the impediment, their belief being founded upon apparently good reason. (bb) New York. See Decree of Nullity: No. 1 (10 P. D., 238) ; No. 6 (15 P. D., 227). See Divorce: No. 7 (12 P. D., 303; 14 P. D., 173). See Legitimacy: No. 1 (9 P. D., 199). See Marriage: No. 2 (f) (15 P. D., 290) ; No. 12 (12 P. D., 32). See Laws of, and 10 P. D., 241. 242, 243, 389 : 11 P. D., 214 ; 12 P. D., 311, 340, 514 ; 13 P. D., 158 ; 14 P. D.. 20, 177, 366. See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. and 15 P. D. Marriage -Consanguinity — Infants. (Abbie Salmon, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 389.) PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 351 A marriage between an uncle and his niece is valid in the State of New York. The marriage in the State of New York of a female under 13 years of age is valid, though voidable ; but can not be avoided if she cohabits with her husband after she becomes of the age of legal consent. Marriage — Evidence — Presumption of death — New York laws. (Annie Notman, widow, 11 P. D., 212.) Appellant was married to one David King in 1852, in Scotland. Between 1855 and 1856 said King came to the United States, leaving his wife in Scotland ; thereafter he sent for her, and in July, 1857, she joined him at Cohoes, N. Y., where they lived as man and wife until October of that year, when on account of the closing of the mill in which he was employed he left home for the purpose of procuring w^ork and has never been seen or heard from since by appellant. In December, 1865, claimant married James Notman, who died May 26, 1892, leaving her without property or means of support. Held: That claimant was the legal widow of James Notman under the laws of New York, and that her claim as such is suffi- ciently proved under the law as stated in the case of Davie v, Briggs (97 U. S., 628), and that under the evidence she is en- titled to pension as the widow of said James Notman under the act of June 27, 1890. The cases of Lavanchia L. Salisbury (7 P. D., 247) and Spicer V. Spicer (16 Abb. Prac. Repts.) referred to and distinguished. Marriage — New York laws — Impediment — Presumption of death. (Ann Green, widow, 12 P. D., 306.) The claimant's marriage to the soldier is shown to have been valid under the laws of the State of New York, where celebrated, her former husband being reported and generally believed to have died eleven years before, and who has not been heard of since his reported death, twenty-six years ago at this time. Marriage and divorce — Remarriage — Presumption of death — Im- pediment. (Mary N. Lester, widow, 12 P. D., 310.) Appellant's marriage to the soldier at a time when she had a husband living and undivorced, she not having exercised ordi- nary diligence in informing herself as to the whereabouts of such first husband when she contracted a second marriage, such second marriage was not entered into in good faith, in the honest belief that her first husband was dead, and can not be upheld under section 6, chapter 8, article 1, of the New York Statutes, volume 3, and confers on her no right of pension as widow of said second husband. 852 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Marriage and divorce — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Laws of New York. (Adaline Tripp, widow, 13 P. D., 157.) Soldier, prior to his marriage to claimant in 1866, had been married to one Charlotte, who secured a divorce from him in 1857 in the State of New York, where they were domiciled, on the ground of adultery, wherein the decree provided, according to the laws of that State, that the plaintiff might marry again, but that it should be unlawful for the defendant to marry daring the life of the plaintiff, Charlotte, who died January 6, 1895. Claimant, therefore, could not have contracted a legal marriage with soldier prior to the death of Charlotte, January 6, 1895 ; and she has, therefore, no pensionable status vuider the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, which provides that a widow must have married soldier prior to the passage of said act to be pen- sionable. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Impediment — New York laws. (Anna E. Cummings, as widow, 14 P. D., 365.) The evidence fails to show the claimant's marriage to the sol- dier, contracted while she had a former husband living and undi- vorced, was contracted by her in entire good faith as to her for- mer husband, as required by the statute and decisions of the courts of New York, and such marraige was, therefore, invalid and void, and she is not the soldier's widow. Marriage — New York — Evidence — Impediment — Good faith. (Martha E. A. Witz, widow, 15 P. D., 208.) Claimant married soldier in South Carolina under the belief that her first husband, Astle, was dead, when in fact he did not die until 1875. Claimant and soldier lived together as husband and wife in the State of New York from 1875 till his death, in 1883. The evidence shows that the parties were married in good faith, lived in the matrimonial relation, were commonly regarded as married, and he left a will bequeathing his property to her as " his wife." The evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of a common-law marriage, arising some time prior to his death, in New York, where the right to pension accrued. Following Fordham v. Gouverneur Village (39 N. Y. Supp., 396), and dis- tinguishing the case of Caroline Wagner (12 P. D., 134). Marriage — Divorce — New York — Remarriage — Impediment — Evi- dence—Presumption of marriage. (Ruth B. Baldwin, widow, 15 P. D., 413.) Appellant assumed marriage relations with soldier, who had been married and divorced, at a time when he was prohibited by the decree of divorce from marrying again in the State of New k PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 358 York during the lifetime of his first wife. After a cohabitation of many years, six of which were subsequent to the death of his first wife, soldier died. Their relationship, during these years, was marked by the incidents of marriage — recognition, etc. Held: The evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of a common-law marriage after the removal of the impediment. Where the original relation of the parties is merely illicit, but not morally reprehensible, as a general proposition in New York, continued cohabitation after the removal of the impedi- ment to lawful marriage, coupled with acknowledgment and general marital repute, is sufficient to warrant a finding of a new contract of marriage good at common law ; and this, following Hynes v. McDermott (91. N. Y., 451) and cases therein cited, without regard to actual knowledge of the removal of the impedi- ment. When the original relation was not merely illicit but meretri- cious, the presumption commonly attaching, that said meretri- cious intention continues to exist, is to be weighed with the presumption arising from apparent matrimonial cohabitation after the removal of the impediment, and the question of a valid marriage is determinable by the weight to which either of the adverse presumptions is entitled in view of the facts in evidence in the individual case. The question of remarriage, after the removal of the impedi- ment, is always one for the jury in New York cases. No arbi- trary presumption attaches to any class of facts. Each case is determinable by the equities presented, a generous rule as to the indulgence of presumptions being applied. cc) North Carolina. See Laws of, on, 12 P. D., 288. See Table of State Statutes for 12 P. D. Marriage — Slaves under laws of North Carolina — Act June 27^ 1890. (Caroline Eborn, widow, 12 P. D., 287.) The evidence in the case shows that claimant had an undi- vorced husband when she married the soldier, and her marriage to the latter, under the law of the State of North Carolina, was void. (dd) North Dakota. No case reported. (ee) Ohio. See Decree of Nullity : No. 3 (11 P. D., 271) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 286). See Divorce: No. 4 (13 P. D., 236). 13070—06 23 354 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. See Division' of Pension : No. 12 (13 P. D., 120) ; No. 20 (15 P. D., 143). See Legitimacy: No. 8 (13 P. D., 541; 14 P. D., 428). See Marriage: No. (15 P. D., 308). See Tables of State Statutes for 12, 13, and 15 P. D. Marriage and divorce — Impediment. (Fredricka Kent, widow, 10 P. D., 211.) Soldier married claimant by ceremony in 1864, when he had a former wife living, who was divorced from him twenty-three months thereafter. Claimant and soldier lived together as hus- band and wife, and were so recognized by their neighbors and relatives, for twenty-six years after the removal of the impedi- ment to their marriage and up to the date of soldier's death. Held: That under the laws of the State of Ohio, where the parties resided, a common-law marriage contracted after the removal of said impediment will be presumed. (Bremer v. Briggs, 32 Ohio St., 378, and Schwartz v. State, 33 Ohio C. C. Eep., 62.) Marmage — Ohio — Age of consent. (Frances A. Terrell, widow, 15 P. D., 225.) Claimant married one Harper in 1862, in the State of Ohio, when she was but 17 years of age. She deserted him, and, with- out any divorce having been obtained, married the soldier in the State of Ohio in December, 1872. Harper was known to have been alive as late as 1890. Claimant's marriage to Harper when the age of consent for marriageable purposes was 14 years for females in the State (Ohio) in which this issue arises, such marriage was valid in all respects, and the marriage between claimant and soldier was void ab initio. (ff) Oregon. See Tables of State Statutes for 11 P. D. See Laws of, and 11 P. D., 428. Marriage — Evidence — Presumptions — Cohabitation and repute. (Sarah E. Manwell, widow, 11 P. D., 427.) Under the civil code of Oregon, as construed in the case of Murray v. Murray (6 Or., 26), "when it is shown by evidence that a man and woman are living together and cohabiting as man and wife, and are in the community reputed and received in society as such, it is sufficient prima facie to prove the marriage in a civil action or proceeding." (gg) Pennsylvania. See Division of Pensions: No. 12 (13 P. D., 297). See Marriage: No. 3 (a) (12 P. D., 106) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 497; 12 P. D., 32G) ; No. 12 (10 P. D., 162). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 355 Maii'iage and divorce in Pennsylvania, (Rebecca C. Howell, alleged widow, 12 P. D., 300.) At the time appellant married the soldier in 1868, in the State of Pennsylvania, he had an undivorced wife living, who died in 1888. She lived with the soldier in the relation of husband and wife from date of marriage to date of his death, July 16, 1890. Held: That under the decision of the Pennsylvania courts their continued cohabitation after the removal of the impediment to their legal marriage, without evidence of a new contract, is not sufficient to raise the presumption of a marriage after the removal of such impediment. (See cases of Sarah C. Hayden, 8 P. D., 364; Hunt v. Cleve- land, 6 Pa. C. C, 592, and Hautz v. Sealey, 6 Binn., 405.) Marriage — Pennsylvania — Impediment — Evidence. (Annie E. Laraway, as widow, 14 P. D., 212.) At the time of the marriage of claimant to soldier said soldier had a wife living from whom he had not been divorced. Said marriage was therefore void and cohabitation thereunder illicit. Marriage will not be presumed from cohabitation, when the rela- tion between the parties was of illicit origin, in the absence of proof of a subsequent actual marriage. Marriage — Pennsylvania — Evidence — Presumption of death, (Caroline Kraft, widow, 15 P. D., 495.) Claimant was married to one Moringer in the year 1858. He deserted her a few months later and has not been heard from since. She married her soldier husband, Frank Kraft, in 1861 and again in 1861. Held: (1) That presuniption of death does not attach in the State of Pennsylvania, where all of said marriages were con- tracted and claimant has since resided, until the expiration of the full seven-year period. (Keel's Estate, 30 W. N. C, 419.) (2) That a marriage will not be presumed after said presump- lion arises from the continuance of a cohabitation of illicit origin. (Annie E. Laraway, 14 P. D., 212.) [^(hh) Rhode Island. Marriage — Rhode Island — Impediment. (Mary E. Williams, widow, 15 P. D., 543.) The deceased sailor, at the date of his alleged marriage to claimant in the State of Rhode Island, had an undivorced wife, who survives him. Under the laws of said State, his domicile to death, his mar- riage with claimant was " absolutely void." (General Laws of R. I., 1896, chap. 191, sec. 5.) 356 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. (ii) South Carolina. See Marriage: No. 2 (bb) (15 P. D., 208) ; No. 15 (14 P. D., 537). See Tables of State Statutes for 14 and 15 P. D. See Laws of. Marriage — South Carolina — Colored persons — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Rosanna Parkman, alleged widow, 15 P. D., 411.) . Soldier and one Lavinia, who had previously been slaves, but were then under the protection of the military authorities of the United States and no longer slaves, were married by a cere- mony in South Carolina a short time after soldier's enlistment in the United States Army, and they lived together as husband and wife during and after soldier's military service. Subsequently, about the year 1870, soldier married the claim- ant, when he had a former living imdivorced wife, which said marriage was null and void and of no effect, and claimant can not be held to be his widow. Marriage — South Carolina — Arkansas — Evidence — Presumption — Second marriage — Impediment — Divorce. (Alfordine Grove, widow, 15 P. D., 540.) Marriage in South Carolina is a civil contract, whereby the parties take each other in presenti for husband and wife, with- out any particular formality; but proof that two persons lived together as husband and wife is conclusive of their marriage if not rebutted. But where a party has contracted a valid mar- riage and then married a second time, cohabitation and acknowl- edgment of the marriage relation between the parties to the second marriage is not evidence of its validity. A second marriage during the subsistence of a first is void, except in the case of a person whose husband or wife has absented himself or herself for a period of seven years, the one not knowing the other to be living during that time. The courts of that State have no authority to decree divorce, and never have had, except from 1872 to 1878, and then only for one cause — adultery. (jj) South Dakota. No case. (kk) Tennessee. See Legitimacy: No. 3 (11 P. D., 294). See Marriage: No. 15 (13 P. D., 140; 15 P. D., 30). See Tables of State Statutes for 12, 13, and 15 P. D. See Laws of, and 12 P. D., 469, 514, 515 ; 13 P. D., 142. Marriage — Tennessee — Missouri — Evidence. (Angeline Adamson, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 328.) First. The evidence in this case fails to shoAV any ceremonial PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 357 or common-law marriage between the claimant and soldier, but shows that their relation was illicit in its inception, and con- tinned unchanged until her desertion of soldier in 1885, eight years prior to his death. Second. A relation illicit in its origin is presumed to so con- tinue until a changed relation is shown, and continuous cohabita- tion of the parties after the removal of the legal impediment to marriage is not evidence of a change from an illicit to a matri- monial status under the laws of Tennessee or Missouri. Marriage — Laics of Tennessee — Age of consent. (Mahala Viles, widow, 12 P. D., 468.) 1. Claimant, when she was about 15 years of age, was married to one Wyrick, Avho was about 18 years of age, by a justice of the peace in Tennessee, without having first produced a license so to do. As the age of consent to marriage in said State was 14 years in males and 12 years in females, said marriage was valid and her marriage to soldier while said Wyrick was living and un- divorced was void, notwithstanding said Wyrick had married another woman prior to claimant's said marriage. 2. Common-law marriages are legal in Tennessee. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Laws of Tennessee. (Annie Huston, alias Richardson, widow, 12 P. D., 514.) The claimant was the legal wife of Dennis Dean on and after May 26, 1866. She thereafter, on May 30, 1876, attempted to marry the above-named soldier. Dean lived until the year 1893, claimant's second husband living until December 18, 1892. Dean and claimant were never divorced. Held: Claimant is not the widow of the soldier in question. (McKeynolds v. The State of Tennessee, 5 Cold., 20, and Mar- garet Gilbert, 8 P. D., 249.) Claimant will be presumed to have known Dean to have been alive when she contracted her second marriage under the rule made by the Supreme Court in the case of Oliver -v. Piatt (3 Howard, 333). (11) Texas. See Marriage: No. 3 (b) (12 P. D., 417) ; No. 7 (9 P. D., 209) ; No. •15 (13 P. D., 129) ; (14 P. D., 156). See Tables of State Statutes for 9 and 14, P. D. See Laws of, and 9 P. D., 200 ; 13 P. D., 142 ; 14 P. D., 157. Marriage — Texas — Evidence — Presumption — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Emma W. Messenger, widow, 15 P. D., 399.) In the State of Texas a marriage duly celebrated under license is presumed legal and valid, and such presumption outweighs 358 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. that of the continuance of life of a former husband or wife, or that of the continuance of a former marriage, and death or divorce from such former marriage prior to such subsequent mar- riage should be presumed in the absence of testimony clearly showing that such former husband or wife was alive, and not divorced at the time of such second marriage. (mm) Utah. See Divorce: No. 9 (14 P. D., 99). (nn) Vermont. No case. (oo) Virginia. See Marriage: No. 4 (9 P. D., 5) ; No. 15 (11 P. D., 167, 443). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 11, 13, and 14 P. D. See Laws of, and 9 P. D., ; 11 P. D., 1G7, 445 ; 13 P. D., 146, 147 ; 14 P. D., 447. Marriage — Laws of Virginia — Cohabitation — Evidence. (Eliza A. Stewart, widow, 13 P. D., 146.) The evidence shows that the claimant commenced to cohabit with Dabney Smith in the State of Virginia in the year 18()5 as his Avife, and so continued up to 1870, at least two children being born to them, one of whom is now living. Claimant attempted to marry the soldier in 1873, a ceremony being per- formed, and she lived with him until his death in 1900. A bona fide matrimonial intent on the part of the claimant and Dabney Smith is shown, and is reasonably inferable from the facts. Held: The act of the legislature of the State of Virginia of February 27, 1806, made the claimant and Dabney Smith hus- band and wife; and her attempted marriage with the soldier was, therefore, void ab initio, death or divorce not having been shown. Marriage— Cohabitation., act of June 27^ 1890. (Peggy Churn, alleged widow, 14 P. D., 445.) The appellant and soldier began living together in the State of Virginia some time during the year 1867, where they contin- ued to live and cohabit as husband and wife until the date of his death, which occurred August 4, 1890, but were never married under a license or by any ceremony. Held: That, under the laws of the State of Virginia, where a common-law marriage is not valid, claimant and soldier were never lawfully married, and, therefore, she is not his legal wddow and has no pensionable status under the act of June 27, 1890. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 859 Marriage and divorce — Impediment. (Indiana Christie, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 15.) A marriage solemnized in the State of Virginia, when either of the parties had been previously married, said first marriage never having been dissolved, is void from inception. It neces- sarily follows that when the impediment is removed a new rela- tion must be shown to have been entered into ; for a continuance of cohabitation is but a continuance of an illicit relation upon which a common-law marriage can not be based. (Stones v. Keeling, 5 Call., 143, and Herbert v. Hile's Admr., 90 Va., 390.) (pp) Washington. No case. qq) West Virginia. See Marriage: No. 9 (15 P. D., 308). See Table of State Statutes for 15 P. D. Marriage — West Virginia — Act August 7, 1882. (Mazilla Lester, as widow, 14 P. D., 38.) Claimant married soldier by ceremony while he had a living and undivorced wife. A divorce was obtained from soldier by the first wife three months after he married claimant. No further marriage took place between soldier and claimant after the impediment was removed. Held: Claimant is not the widow of soldier. Common-law marriages are invalid in the State of West Virginia if contracted in said State. (Beverlin v. Beverlin, 29 W. Va., 723.) Marriage — West Virginia — Voidable marriage. (Sarinda Davis, widow, 15 P. D., 447.) Claimant ceremonially married soldier in West Virginia in 1872, when her first husband was presumptively alive and undi- vorced. Such a marriage is merely voidable under the provi- sions of section 1, chapter 64, of the Code. AVhere one of the parties to a marriage in AVest Virginia had a living undivorced spouse, said remarriage is absolutely void without decree of court or legal process if contracted prior to April 1, 1869, when Code I860, chaj^ter 109, section 1, was in force; but such a marriage, if contracted subsequent to April 1, 1869, when Code 1868, chapter 64, section 1, was in force, is void only from the time it is so declared by a decree of divorce or nullity. As claimant and soldier were married while the last-mentioned code was in effect, and as said marriage has never been pro- nounced void by a court of competent jurisdiction, claimant is the widow of the soldier. 360 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. (rr) Wisconsin. See Divorce: No. 7 (14 P. D., 173). See Decree of Nullity: No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Tables of State Statutes for 12. 14, 5ind 15 P. D. See Laws of, and 14 P. D., 19. Marriage and Divorce — Legitimacy. (Alleged minors of Jonas W. Pulver, 10 P. D., 227.) 1. A common-law marriage is good in the State of Wisconsin. A marriage in Wisconsin when one of the parties has an undi- vorced living husband or wife is void. After such impediment is removed a new relation must be shown to have been entered into as a fact; otherwise the continuance of the cohabitation will be presumed to be illicit. (Williams v. Williams, 46 Wis., 464.) 2. Children born of a marriage null in law are legitimate in Wisconsin. (See 2274, R. S. Wis., and Watts et al. v. Owen, 62 Wis., 512.) 3. Such fact does not, however, give them a pensionable status, for a pensionable status is to be determined wholly by the laws of the United States, Avhich limits a minor's title to one which was, or could have been, in the legal wife (widow). (Sec. 4702, R. S. U. S., as amended.) (ss) Wyoming. No case, (ss) New Mexico. See Marriage: No. 11 (15 P. D., 392). (ss) Cherokee Nation. See Divorce: No. 8 (12 P. D., 474). See Marriage : No. 8 (13 P. D., 368). See Laws of, and 12 P. D., 475. (ss) Choctaw Nation. See Marriage: No. 8 (15 P. D., 283). See Table of State Statutes for 15 P. D. 3. Former Marriage No Bar. (a) Generally. MarHage and divorce — Presumptions. (Jennette Burton, widow, 9 P. b., 31.) 1. Claimant having established by the record that she was married to the sailor by a ceremony June 23, 1878, and lived with him from that time until he died, April 28, 1895, her title as widow can not be invalidated by a mere presumption of a pre- vious common-law marriage of the sailor to another woman. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 361 2. The burden of proof against the validity of the ceremonial marriage does not rest upon the widow, but upon the parties who attack the validity of such ceremonial marriage, and the pre- sumption of law favors innocence of the latter marriage, until the contrary be proved. Marriage — Impediment to marriage. (Margaret L. Thomas, widow,9P. D., 139.) Claimant w^as married to the soldier by a ceremony in 1875, and lived with him in Michigan until his death in 1895; at the time of said marriage soldier had a wife living who procured a divorce from him in 1877, all of which facts w^ere unknown to claimant during the lifetime of the soldier. Held: That as claimant was the innocent party, and was kept in ignorance of the fact that a legal impediment to her marriage to soldier existed at the time of such marriage, and that during all the time from the removal of the impediment in 1877 to soldier^s death in 1895 the parties cohabited together as husband and wife, uniting in conveyances, and JDining in church mem- bership, and deporting themselves generally in accordance with good morals, and being universally recognized by their neigh- bors, friends, and acquaintances as husband and w^ife, a valid marriage subsequent to the removal of the impediment will be presumed, distinguishing this case from that of Ellen, widow of William A. Palmer (150^ P. L. Bk., 2e35). Marriage and divorce — Evidence, (Sarah Newberry, widow, 10 P. D., 294.) ' Claimant maintained an illicit relation with one Henry Davis from about 1869 to 1882, in the States of Illinois and Missouri, when they separated and both married thereafter, Davis marry- ing in Sedalia, Mo., in 1884, and claimant marrying soldier in 1885, by a ceremony, with whom she lived as his wife until his death in 1891. Claimant and Davis both swear that they were never married to each other, and the evidence does not show that they were ever regarded as husband and wife in the communi- ties where they lived. Held: That the cohabitation of claimant and Davis was illicit and not matrimonial, and that her marriage to the soldier was valid. Marriage — Impediment — Void marriage — Act June 27, 1890. (Sarah Sanford, widow, 12 P. D., 106.) The deceased soldier was first lawfully married in 1857, in Mifflin County, Pa., to one Amelia Ryan, with whom he lived as his wife until 1866, when he deserted her and went to Platte County, Mo., where he married one Elmyra Burns, in August, 362 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 1867. He deserted this second wife, Elmyra, in a few months, and there is no proof that he ever lived w ith her, or acknowledged her as his wife afterwards. The evidence shows that the soldier was never divorced from his first wife, Amelia, who is shown to have died in 1878. He married the appellant, Sarah Waddle, in Calhoun County, 111., in 1887, nine years after the death of the first wife, Amelia, and lived with her as his wife until his death in 1894. Held: That the second marriage of the soldier to Elmyra, while the first wife was living and undivorced, w^as illegal and absolutely void, never became a lawful union, and constituted no bar or impediment to his marriage to this appellant in 1887, after the dissolution of his first and only lawful prior marriage by the death of Amelia, and that the appellant is shown to have been the lawful wife of the soldier, and should be accepted as his widow for pensionable purposes. Marriage — Evidence — Presumptions. (Esther A. Palmer, wadow, 11 P. D., 320.) The claimant having proved the fact of her marriage to the soldier according to the law of the State of Illinois, and co- habitated with him as his wife from the marriage to the date of his death, sixteen years afterwards, her pensionable status w^as established. A mere presumption of life of a prior husband can not prevail against the presumption of the innocence of parties who enter the marriage relation according to legal forms. (b) Claimants' Admissions. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Admissions. (Mary Aiin Jones, widow, 10 P. D., 297.) Claimant first stated that she was previously married to one Neil in the Isle of Man, England, by whom she had one child, a daughter, and that her said husband was dead. Evidence taken on special examination shows claimant's maiden name to have been Neil, and that her daughter was the fruit of an illicit rela- tion with a man in England, and claimant now admits this, claiming that she had represented herself as a widow to conceal from said daughter that she was an illegitimate child, and it is held that there was no impediment to her marriage to the soldier. Marriage — Evidence — Presumption of death — Impediment. ( Eliz- abeth Adams, widow, 12 P. D., 312. The only testimony as to claimant's first marriage and as to that husband's death being her own statement, which shows also PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 363 that his death was prior to her second marriage, she appearing to be a woman of good reputation, and no further testimony ap- pearing to be procurable, she is held to have satisfactorily estab- lished her capacity to remarry. Her second marriage is shown of record; also a third, to the soldier, three years later, and subsequent to the reported death in England of her second husband, but the only testimony as to the death of her second husband is her own statement, none other appearing to be procurable. She and soldier cohabited as hus- band and wife until his death nearly thirty years after their marriage, with no further news of her second husband. Held: Assuming her formal marriage to the soldier was in- valid and void, the prior death of her second husband not being satisfactorily established by proof, that the latter's death may be presumed under the general rule as to presumption of death, and that there was a valid common-law marriage subsequent to the seven-year period mentioned in said rule. Marriage — Impediment — Evidence. (Rebecca J. Fisher, widow, 12 P. D., 417.) The only evidence of a prior marriage of claimant or soldier is the statement of the former coupled with the statement that the first husband and wife died years before the second mar- riage, but that it was impossible for her at that late date to furnish further evidence as to that fact. Held : That claimant having proved the fact of her marriage to the soldier according to the laws of Texas, where said mar- riage was celebrated and where the parties resided at the time the right to pension accrued, and having cohabited with soldier as his wife from the date of said marriage to the date of his death, ten years thereafter, her pensionable status was estab- lished, as the mere presumption of life of a prior husband or wife can not prevail against the presumption of the innocence of the parties who enter the marriage relation according to legal forms. (Esther A. Palmer, 11 P. D., 320.) (c) Soldiers' Admissions. Marriage and divorce — Evidence. (Sarah Buchanan, widow, 10 P. D., 423.) The only evidence of a prior marriage of this sailor being his own statement, in which he says also that he was divorced from such marriage before and was a widower at the time of his for- mal remarriage to claimant, with whom he lived for twenty-five years thereafter until his death, such remarriage is held to have been a valid one, and claimant his lawful widow, notwithstand- 364 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ing there is no corroborative evidence of such divorce from the prior marriage, or of the first wife's death. Marriage and divorce — Evidence. (Carrie Peterson, widow, 11 P. D., 139.) Claimant's marriage to the soldier is shown by evidence of a ceremony and cohabitation. The only evidence of his prior mar- riage is the testimony of his sister and a friend, to whom he wrote or disclosed that he had married a girl in a seaport while he was pursuing the occupation of a sailor. His mere declaration, with- out other proof, is not competent to establish such a marriage to the prejudice of the rights of this claimant, and, on this point, her legal widowhood is considered established. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Presumptions. (Mary M. A. Wood, widow, 11 P. D., 158.) The claimant being unable to prove, by the testimony of per- sonal acquaintances, that she was never married prior to her mar- riage to the soldier, or to furnish any evidence of the death of the soldier's first wife, except a sworn statement made by the sol- dier himself less than a year before his death, but all the known facts, as well as the presumptions of law, being favorable to the validity of her said marriage, it is held to have been a valid mar- riage. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Presumptions. (Annie D. Bur- goyne, widow, 12 P. D., 182.) The claimant proves her marriage to the sailor in 1888 and continuous cohabitation w^ith him from that time until his death in 1895. The only reason for questioning the validity of said marriage lies in the fact that the sailor stated he had been pre- viously married, but he also affirmed that his former wife was dead. No other evidence of former marriage or death of first wife can be obtained. Held: That the mere possibility remaining, after all sources of information have been exhausted, that there was a former wife living in 1888 is not sufficient to defeat the prima facie title of the claimant based on record evidence of a ceremonial marriage followed by continuous cohabitation for a period of seven years. Marriage and divorce — Impediment — Evidence. (Sella Ambers, widow, 12 P. D., 333.) In a case where the evidence establishes the marriage of claim- ant to the soldier, and there is no evidence that the parties were incapacitated for marriage at its date other than the soldier's own statement that he had been previously married, in which he also said that his former wife had died before his marriage to claimant, the marriage is not successfully attacked nor its va- lidity destroyed. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 365 4. Former Marriage Held a Bar. See No. 2 (hli), this chapter (15 P. D., 543). Mcumage and divorce — Civil death. (Elizabeth W. P^ox, widow, 9P. D., 5). 1. Claimant at date of her marriage to soldier had a former husband living from whom she had not been divorced, but who had been convicted of a felony and imprisoned. Held: The doctrine of civil death is not recognized by the law or courts of the State of Virginia, and imprisonment for felony, while affording just grounds for a divorce, does not per se oper- ate as a divorce. 2. Under the statutes of Indiana, where claimant married the soldier, all marriages where either party thereto has a former wife or husband living, if solemnized in that State, are declared to be absolutely void without any legal proceedings. Marriage — Legitimacy. (Theresia Schreve, now Schmidt, 9 P. D., T8.) There being evidence in the case showing that soldier had a wife living in Germany, whom he deserted prior to his marriage to claimant, it is incumbent upon her to show the death of said first wife, or that the parties were divorced, before she can be regarded the legal widow of said soldier; and in the absence of such proof the minor child of soldier by said claimant can not be regarded as legitimate. Marriage and divorce — Impediment. (Louisa S. Hoepfner, widow, 9P. b.,497.) Claimant was married to soldier May 23, 1896, at which time she had a former husband living from w^hom she was not di- vorced, but who died August 13, 1896. Soldier died August 19, 1896. From August 13 to August 19, 1896, claimant lived with soldier as his wife in the same unchanged relation as prior to August 13, 1896. Held: That under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, in which the parties resided at the time of her first and second hus- band's death, a valid marriage is not shown, and claimant is therefore not the widow of the soldier and has no title to a widow's pension under any law. Marriage and divorce — Evidence. (Mary J. Stocker, widow, 9 P. D., 506.) It having been admitted by appellant that both she and the soldier on account of whose service and death she claims pension, had been married previous to their marriage to each other, it is incumbent upon her to establish the dissolution of said prior marriage by either death or divorce before she can be regarded as the lawful widow of said deceased soldier. 866 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Marriage — Impediment, (Sarah F. Sullivan, now Morris, widow, 10 P. D., 179.) The evidence shows the claimant's marriage to the soldier was invalid, he having at that time a former wife living and undivorced. Marriage and divorce — Impediment. (Harriet Comstock, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 220.) At the date of claimant's alleged marriage to soldier, in 1864, in the State of New York, she had a former husband living from whom she had not been divorced. She continued to live and co- habit with soldier in the States of New York, Minnesota, and in Michigan, from 1884 up to the date of his death, in 1893. Her first husband died in 1866. On September 27, 1891, a marriage ceremony was performed between the claimant and soldier in the State of Michigan. Held: That as claimant's relation with soldier was illicit in its commencement, it is so presumed to continue until a changed relation is proved, and actual marriage can not be presumed from continued cohabitation and reputation after the removal of the legal impediment by the death of her first husband. ( Rose V. Rose, 67 Mich., 619; Ellen A. Palmer, 7 P. D., 363; Louisa S. Hoepfner, 9 P. D., 497 ; AYilhelmina K. Monteton, 10 P. D., 12, and Indiana Christie, ibid., 15.) Marriage — Louisiana and Mississippi — Evidence. (Louisa C. Ger- main, widow, 10 P. D., 393.) The evidence shows that at the time of claimant's marriage to the sailor he had a lawful wife living and undivorced, so that the marriage was void ab initio. This is not only the general rule of law, but is in accord with the decisions of the courts, especially in Louisiana and Mississippi, where these parties lived. And there is no evidence to show that a new^ contract of marriage or other form of consent was entered into after the removal of the impediment — that is, the death of the first wife, which was five months before sailor's death. Marriage can not be presumed, and rejection of claim was proper. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Decree. (Kate E. Richardson, as widow, 10 P. D., 409.) It appearing from the evidence that the deceased soldier had been lawfully married to another woman prior to his marriage to this appellant, and that said first wife is still living, and there being no sufficient evidence that said first marriage was ever legally dissolved by divorce, this appellant can not be recognized as the widow of the soldier and is not entitled, under the proof in this case, to pension as such widow under the provisions of section 4702, Revised Statutes. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 367 Marriage — Evidence — Presumption. (Elizabeth Henderson, al- leged widow, 11 P. D., 204.) The evidence shows that the soldier had, at the time of his formal marriage to this claimant in 1874, a living and undi- vorced former wife, who died in 1892, having been insane since 1860. Held: Said marriage in 1874 was invalid and void, and a valid marriage subsequent to the death of his lawful wife in 1892, his own death occurring in 1896, is not presumable from the circumstances shown. Marriage and divorce — Impediment — Evidence. (Caroline Wag- ner, alleged widow, 12 P. D., 134.) It appearing from the evidence in this case that at the date of the marriage of this appellant to the deceased soldier he had another lawful wife living and undivorced, her marriage to him was illegal and void under the laws of the State of New York, where it was consummated and where the parties resided; and since it also appears that the appellant had no knowledge of the existence of the impediment to her lawful marriage with the soldier until after his death, and no change in the relationship sustained by said parties to each other is shown after the removal of the impediment to their lawful union by the death of the first wife, no legal marriage is established between the appellant and the soldier, and she is not his pensionable widow. Marriage and divorce under the laws of Pennsylvania and Illi- nois — Impediment. (Lola T. Harvey, as widow, 12 P. D., 326.) Appellant was married to the soldier in the State of Pennsyl- vania, June 13, 1886, in conformity with the laws of said State, and thereafter lived with him as his wife in the State of Illinois to the date of his death in 1898. At the time said marriage was celebrated soldier had a wife living who w^as divorced from him September 20, 1886, which fact was not known to appellant until after soldier's death. Held: That appellant's marriage to soldier in June, 1886, was void, and that, under these facts, and the laws of Pennsylvania, where this second marriage was celebrated, and of Illinois, where the parties resided at the time the right* to pension accrued, a marriage subsequent to the removal of the impediment to a valid marriage between the parties by the divorce of soldier's first wife in September, 1886, can not be presumed, and appellant can not . be regarded as the widow of said soldier for pensionable pur- poses. (See cases of Cartwright et al. v. McGowen, 121 111., 388, and Sarah C. Hay den, 8 P. D., 364, and cases therein cited.) 368 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Record — Duress.. (Ellen Dev- ening, alleged widow, 12 P. D., 434.) The evidence shows that the claimant was lawfully married to one James Holleran (who is still living) prior to her marriage to the soldier, and fails to show that said prior marriage was ever legally annulled or dissolved. It is therefore held that her marriage to the soldier was invalid. Marriage and divorce — Prior marriage — Impediment, (Alice Franklin and Ellen Franklin, claimants as widows, 12 P. D., 505.) Claimant Alice married the wdthin-named soldier in 1863, and he deserted her about the year 1868. She subsequently attempted to contract two other marriages, and the soldier died, after said attempts, in the year 1894. Held: Claimant's subsequent marriages w^ere void ab initio for the reason that she had a living and undivorced husband at the dates on which she attempted to contract said marriages. She is now the widow of soldier. Claimant Ellen married soldier in the year 1869, and he died in the year 1894. Soldier at the date of his marriage with claimant had a living undivorced wife, and said wife is now living. Held : Claimant is not the widow of the soldier in question. Marriage — Evidence — Impediment — Divorce. (Mary J. Gilliland, widow, 13 P. D., 90.) The evidence fails to satisfactorily account for either the death or divorce of the officer's two former wives, and the whole history of the case fails to warrant a presumption that the marriage with claimant was a legal one. The Government is not called upon, or required, in a pension claim, to prove any issue; and in the case of a disputed marriage the burden of proof does not shift to the Government to prove the illegality of any marriage. . The Government is neither a defend- ant or contestant in a pension claim, but is required, under the law, to passAipon the evidence in such a claim, subject to the rules and laws which universally obtain. Any statement to the con- trary effect in the opinion in the case of Jeannette Burton (9 P. D., 31) is hereby expressly overruled. Marriage — Evidence — Probate court — Act of August 7, 1882. (Diana M. Dana, 13 P. D., 272.) 1. A special examiner's report as to the fact and purport of a probate court's finding as to claimant's marital status, with cor- roborative sworn testimony of the probate judge who made such finding and of the party who procured the testimony on which it was based, is sufficient introduction in evidence in a i3ension claim of said finding Avhen no contest as to it is made and when the claimant against whom it is made admits it. r PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 369 2. Such finding is not a law of the State witliin the meaning of the act of August 7, 1882, and is not binding upon the Depart- ment in the adjudication of such claim; but as a rule it will be followed when rendered by a competent tribunal and is valid on its face. 3. The word " laws " as used in the act of August 7, 1882, pro- viding that marriages shall be proven in pension claims to be legal marriages " according to the laws " of the place where the parties resided, should be "limited to local statutes (and their construction by the local tribunals) and local usages " having the force of laws. (Swift v, Tyson, 16 Pet, 18.) ' 4. Secondary evidence as to the contents and purport of lost records is admissible on proof of the loss of such records. 5. The evidence herein shows this soldier was married prior to his marriage to the claimant; that his first wife was living at the time of his death, and that she w^as found by the probate court administering his estate to be his Avidow. The claimant is not, therefore, entitled to pension as widow, she not having established a valid marriage according to the laws of the State of Maine, where she and soldier resided. Marriage — Evidence — Impediment. (Mary Marsh, as widow, 13 P. D.,402.) The evidence fails to show satisfactorily that the two former marriages of the claimant's alleged husband were illegal or have been dissolved by either death or divorce. (Mary J. Gilliland, 13P. D., 90.) [Marriage and divorce — Evidence. (Maria White, widow, 14 P. D., 21-) As soldier had a wife living from whom he had not been di- vorced at the time of his marriage to claimant, such marriage was null and void; and as soldier's first wife survived him, and neither ever having procured a divorce, there was no period of time when claimant and soldier could have been legally married, she is not his widow nor entitled to pension. Marriage and divorce — Void marriage — Impediment. (Emma A. Morrill, widow, 14 P. D., 310.) The evidence clearly shows that the marriage between claimant and Parsons was consummated when Parsons bad a living and undivorced wife, and, under the facts in evidence, no common- law marriage could possibly have sprung into existence after the death of said wife. The marriage with Parsons was void ab initio, and claimant's status is Ihe same as if no marriage had ever taken place between herself and Parsons. 13070— OG 24 370 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 5. Fraud. Marriage and divorce — Fraud. (Elizabeth Acton, alleged widow of John Qiiinn, 10 P. D., 258.) Claimant alleges that she was married to the soldier, John Qiiinn, at Vincennes, Ind., November 20, 1867, under her maiden name of Elizabeth Ryan, and relies entirely for proof of that fact on a certified transcript of the marriage records of the county in which Vincennes is situated, showing the marriage of one John Quinn to " Eliza Frederick " on the date alleged. It is con- clusively proved that said marriage record referred to entirely different persons than alleged by claimant, and that the minors of John Quinn, of Company F, Twentv-fourth Indiana Volun- teers, the person to whom said record refers, have filed a copy of the same record to prove the marriage of their deceased father to their mother, Eliza Frederick ; therefore, claimant having failed to 23rove her marriage to soldier, can not be regarded as his law- ful widow. 6. Hearsay Evidence as to Death. Marriage — Evidence — Hearsay — Proof of death. (Susan Cahoe, widow, 13 P. D., 96.) The evidence of claimant and three w^itnesses that heard the fact of claimant's first husband's (Gavin) death from drown- ing from McLean and Cahoe, claimant's last husband (both now dead), who were with said Gavin at the time of the droAvning, and who immediately on their return conveyed the information to the claimant and the neighbors, and the fact that said Gavin's daughter grew to womanhood believing that her father came to his death as stated by these deceased persons, sufficiently estab- lished the death of such person, the declarations of these wit- nesses in their lifetime being so connected with the principal fact under investigation that they are admissible as original evidence. (1 Green. Ev., sec. 108.) 7. Impediment of Blood. Marriage in Mississippi — Impediment of blood. (Ann Cahal, al- leged widow, 9 P. D., 127.) Evidence secured by special examination shows that soldier w^as a white man and claimant is a negro. The intermarriage of the races being prohibited by the laws of Mississippi, in which State the parties resided, their cohabitation could not be regarded as a legal marriage, but was mere concubinage, and claimant is not the lawful widow of the soldier nor entitled to pension as such. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 371 Marriage of colored to white persons in Texas. (Mary A. Miller, colored, 9 P. D., 209.) A colored woman and former slave, who married and cohabited with a white man and ex-soldier in the State of Texas, has no pensionable status as his widow for the reason that such marriage was in violation of the laws of that State and null and void. (Article 2843, Revised Statutes, Texas.) 8. Indian Marriages. Marriage — Indians — Legitimacy — Widow, (Minor of Rabbit Bunch, 13 P. D., 368.) Marriages according to tribal custom are valid in the Cherokee Nation of Indians, and according to such custom no form, rite, or ceremony is essential to the validity of such marriages, the mere taking up and living together as husband and wafe of a man and a woman, neither having a former wife or husband living, being sufficient to constitute such relation a customary marriage. The evidence herein shows this claimant's parents were mar- ried according to said tribal custom, and that she is the soldier's legitimate child, but as the widow, her mother, is yet living and has not forfeited her pensionable status, appellant has no title to pension, and her claim was properly rejected on this ground. Marriage — Choctaw Nation — Citizenship — Impediment. ( Martha Draper, alleged widow, 15 P. D., 283.) 1. The Choctaw Nation is, for domestic purposes, a self-gov- erning State, a " place " within the meaning of the act of August 7, 1882, and the validity of marriages within its jurisdiction is determinable by its laws. 2. Divorce by tribal custom has been abrogated in the Choctaw Nation since October 30, 1800, when the powder to divorce was delegated to the circuit court of said nation. 3. Claimant is a citizen of the Choctaw Nation ; soldier, a white man, was not. At the time of the attempted marriage in the Choctaw Nation soldier had a living undivorced wife. Said marriage was therefore invalid. Nor could a subsequent valid marriage arise after removal of impediment by the suppositive death or divorce of the first w^ife. For, under the provision of chapter 7 of the Laws of the Choctaw Nation, a marriage be- tween one not a citizen of that nation and a female citizen thereof is invalid unless the man first obtains a license therefor, making oath that he has no surviving and undivorced wife, and present- ing a certificate of good moral character, signed by ten respect- able Choctaws, citizens by blood. No such marriage is in evi- 372 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. dence in this case. Claimant is therefore not the widow of the soldier. 9. Insanity. Mai^riage — Insanity — Impediment. (Mary J. Storms, widow, 10 P. D., 192.) As soldier was incapable of entering into a marriage relation by reason of insanity, the claimant's marriage to him is void, and therefore action rejecting her claims for pension upon the ground indicated was proper. Marriage — Ohio — West Virginia — Place of contract — Domicile. (Bethany F. Boster, widow, 15 P. D., 308.) 1. A marriage contracted in West Virginia at a time when one of the parties thereto is mentally incapable of entering into the contract is not void, but merely voidable from the time it is so declared by a decree of divorce or nullity. (Code W. Va., ch. 64, sec. 1.) 2. A marriage contracted in Ohio under such circumstances is absolutely void ab initio. (Waymire v. Jetmore, 22 Ohio Stat., 271.) 3. A marriage is valid for pension purposes if valid according to the law of the place where the parties resided at the time it was contracted, not according to the lex loci contractus. Thus where parties incapable of entering into a valid contract of marriage in the State where they reside temporarily go into another State the laws of which are different and in which they have no residence for the purpose of making such a contract their status will be governed by the law of the State Avhere they reside. 10. Marriage after Passage of Act of June 27, 1890. Marriage and divorce-^Act of Juns 27^ 1890. (Mary Munsell, widow, 9 P. D., 30.) Claimant and soldier were divorced, a viniculo, on claimant's petition. May 6, 1887. The decree of divorce w^as disregarded by both parties, they continuing to cohabit together the same as if no decree had been granted. They were remarried by ceremony on February 27, 1891. Held: The relation existing between soldier and claimant from May 6, 1887, to February 27, 1891, was illicit, and claim- ant was not the legal wife of soldier on June 27, 1890. Marriage — Cohabitation — Act of June 27, 1890. (Mary Newland, as widow, 13 P. D., 338.) The evidence in this case shows that the relations which existed between the deceased soldier and this appellant prior to PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 378 their public ceremonial marriage, July 21, 1892, were not matri- monial, but unlawful and illicit, and did not constitute a com- mon-law marriage. The appellant having married the soldier subsequent to the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, has no title to pension thereunder as his widow. Marriage — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Widovj''s title. (Nancy Byrd, widow, 14 P. D., 347.) The evidence shows that claimant married soldier September 26, 1901. This was after the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, and therefore, according to the provisions of said act, she has no pensionable status under the same. Marriage — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Divorce. (Drucilla Walker, widow, 11 P. D., 488.) Claimant's marriage to the soldier in 1878, he having at the time a former wife living who was not divorced from him until 1890, was null and void, and as claimant was not and could not have been legally married to the soldier prior to the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, she can have no title to pension under said act by reason of the proviso to the third section thereof. Marriage and divorce — Minors'' pension act of June 27^ 1890. (Mary E. Resser, widow; minors of Charles W. Resser, 10 P. D., 266.) 1. It appearing that the last marriage of this appellant, Mary E. Resser, to the deceased soldier was subsequent to the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, she has no title whatever to pension as his widow, under the express provisions of the third section of said act. 2. It also appearing that the widow of said deceased soldier is still living and unmarried, his minor children have no title to pension under the provisions of said section. (Minor child of Lafayette Howard, 8 P. D., 230; Minors of John Davis, 9 P. D., 151.) 11. Marriage Determined by the Lex loci. Marriage — Evidence — Section Jt705^ Revised Statutes^ and act of August 7, 1882.. (Minor of Jack Redbird, 12 P. D., 517.) Section 4705 of the Revised Statutes does not exclude proof of marriage under section 2 of the act of August 7, 1882. Marriage — New Mexico — Evidence. (Desideria L. Brooks, widow, 15 P. D., 392.) Parol evidence is competent evidence in proof of a ceremonial marriage in New Mexico, and the celebration of the marriage being proven, the contract, the capacity of the parties, and, in fact, the validity of the marriage are presumed. The fact of the marriage of claimant and soldier in New 874 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Mexico is established, and the alleged fact of a prior marriage on his part is not shown by evidence sufficient to rebut the pre sumption of the validity of the marriage in question. Marriage — Divorce — California — Domicile — Residence — Jurisdic- tion. (Stella A. Mellen, widow, 15 P. D., 459.) The word " resided," used in section 2 of the act of August 7, 1882, refers to the domicile of the parties and not to the tem- porary place of residence of both or either of them. During coverture the wife's domicile in legal contemplation is that of- her husband, and as her title to pension accrues at his death, it accrues where he was domiciled at that time. 12. Presumption of Death. Emdence — Presumption of death — Marriage. (Annie Dennis, formerly Keno, widoAV, 9 P. D., 243.) Claimant's first husband left her in Missouri in 1873 to go to Chicago, 111., for medical treatment, and a few months later she received a letter from his sister informing her that he was dead. Relying on the truth of this statement she married one Holmes in December, 1877, who procured a divorce from her on the ground of desertion in 1882. In April, 1883, claimant married the soldier, who died in July, 1890. Her first husband has never been heard of in that community since 1873. Held: These facts are sufficient to raise the presumption that claimant's first husband had died prior to her marriage to Holmes, and her marriage to the soldier was legal, and she is his widow. Marriage and divorce -^ Impediment — Presumption of death. (Catharine Conroy, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 162.) 1. Claimant's husband, Matthew Lembert, deserted her, and she thereafter was married by ceremony to John Conroy in the State of Pennsylvania. There are no facts other than desertion on which to found a presumption of death. Held: Claimant is not the widow of John Conroy. (Sarah C. Hayden, 8 P. D., 364; Helen L. Pepper, 9 P. D., 500.) 2. Marriage, in pension cases, is to be proven under section 2, act of August 7, 1882, and this Department will be generally guided, though not absolutely bound, by the construction placed upon the laws of a State by their courts of last resort, following the rule adopted by the United States Supreme Court. 3. Any statement in the opinion in the case of Margaret L. Thomas (9 P. D., 139) which conflicts with said rule is hereby modified. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 375 Evidence — Presumption of death — Marriage, (Mary Coburn, widow, 11 P. D., 43.) The claimant married the soldier in 1883 in the State of Illi- nois. Her former husband had been absent for a period much greater than seven years. His absence was continuous and unex- plained, and no intelligence of his existence has ever been re- ceived. Held: The presumption is in favor of the validity of the second marriage. Marriage — Evidence — Presumption of death. (Wesley Buckler et al., minors, 11 P. D., 234.) 1. Claimant's first husband left her about the year 1856, without an}^ ostensible reason, except to go up the Wabash River, and has never been heard of by his relatives and friends since. There is no evidence in the case that would justify the conclusion that said husband intended to forsake, renounce, or relinquish his concern or interest for said claimant, and it is held that under the act of March 13, 1896, the -facts warrant the presumption that said first husband was dead at the date of claimant's marriage to soldier, ten years after the departure of said first husband, and that said marriage was valid and she is his legal widow. 2. Where no record of deaths is in existence in a particular jurisdiction, testimony of two credible witnesses as to the date of death of a person, giving good reasons for fixing a certain date as the date of such person's death, will be accepted as sufficient proof of the date thereof. Marriage — Evidence — Presumptions. (Nora O'Brien, widow, 12 P. D., 32.) It appears by record evidence that claimant was married to the soldier by a parish priest in Auburn, N. Y., Januar}^ 9, 1868, and lived with him as his wife until his death in 1887. There is evidence in the case tending to show that he had pre- viously been married to one Ann Rivers, who has not been seen or heard of in the community where she lived since 1863, and when last heard of was in the almshouse of Erie County, N. Y., where, it is reported, she died in December, 1863. It is held that the circumstantial evidence in the case gives rise to the inference, with moral and reasonable certainty, that the first wife was dead at the time of claimant's marriage to the soldier, and such marriage was legal. Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Presumption of death. (Mar- garette E. Harnden, widow, 12 P. D., 278.) The fact that claimant's husband deserted her in 1849, of itself, does not raise the presumption that he was dead in 1861, 376 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. when she married soldier (Rosie Wilson, 6 P. D., 133; Pythia Ann Sullivan, 7 P. D., 512; Mary A. Warburton, 7 P. d!, 49; and Helen L. Pepper, 9 P. D., 500) ; but the fact of claimant's marriage to the soldier in 1860 or 1861, under the belief that her first husband Avas dead, her continued cohabitation with him as his wife until his death, thirty-seven or thirty-eight years there- after, the rearing of a family of children recognized by the soldier and herself as their legitimate children, and the fact the first husband was never heard of since 1849, are circumstances from which it may be inferred that said first husband was dead when claimant married soldier in 1860 or 1861 ; and that the pre- sumption, from the facts, of innocence and morality outweigh the presumption of the continuance of the life of said first hus- band. Rider, and claimant's marriage to the soldier was legal. The case of Margaret J. Anderson (4 P. D., 67) is overruled. Marriage in Kentucky — Impediment — Presumption of death. (Amy Collins, 12 P. D., 292.) The claimant's former husband appearing to have been absent and unheard of for five years preceding her marriage to the soldier, with whom she lived for thirty-six years thereafter, such remarriage was valid under the laws of the State of Kentucky, where contracted, and she is the soldier's lawful widow. Marriage and, divorce — Impediment — Evidence — Presumption. (Elizabeth Schneider, widow, 12 P. D., 348.) Appellant was married to the soldier in accordance with the law of Ohio in 1886, and lived with him in the State of Michi- gan as his wife until his death in 1895. One witness has testi- fied that soldier was previously married to a woman in 1865, who left him in 1871, and had not since been heard of. A special examination failed to find any trace of said alleged prior wife. Held: That the mere presumption of life is not sufficient to overcome those presumptions which surround the celebration of a marriage, and under the facts as disclosed claimant is recog- nized as the widow of soldier. Marriage — Presumption of death — Evidence. (Eliza Breezley, widow, 14 P. D., 442.) Soldier, about 1856, married Catherine Vernon, from whom he was separated, but without divorce, in 1857, when she left the State of Illinois, where the parties resided, for Missouri. She was never afterwards heard of, except by general rumor to the effect that she died in 1860. In 1869 he married the claimant by ceremony. Held: That under the decisions of the supreme court of Illi- nois presumption of death of Catherine attaches in favor of the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 377 validity of the soldier's marriage to the claimant, who is there- fore his widow. 13. Presumption of Divorce. Marriage and divorcee — Evidence — Presumption. (Louisa C. Ger- main, widow, 11 P. D., 66.) Soldier married Martha Pinkney in 1841, and they lived to- gether as husband and wife until a short time before the civil Avar, Avhen he separated from her. He married claimant in June, 1871, and also had a second marriage ceremony performed in 1888. Martha, the first wife, died June 22, 1897, and the soldier died November 30, 1897. No evidence of a divorce between soldier and his first wife, Martha, is shown, but it is held that the pre- sumption is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that said soldier had been divorced from his first wife at the time of his second marriage to claimant. (Citing Jennette Burton, 9 P. I)., 31 ; Hull v. Kawles, 26 Miss., 471 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 6 La., 463; Blanchard o. Lambert et al., 43 Iowa, 228 ; Carroll v. Carroll et al., 20 Texas, 731, and Patterson ik Gaines, 6 Howard, 550.) Marriage and divorce — Evidence — Presumption^^ — Proof. (Louisa C. Germain and Mary C. Orr, 11 P. D., 131.) 1. There is no conflict between the decisions in the Germain and Orr cases. 2. In the Germain case it was held that the presumption was, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that soldier had been divorced from his first wife at the time of his second marriage to the claimant; but such presumption is rebuttable. 3. In the Orr case the presumption of divorce was rebutted by the evidence of the first wife and the records of the court show- ing that no divorce had been procured as claimed. Mamage — Divorce — Evidence — Presumption — Act June 27^ 1890. (Annie P. Ryerson, widow, 14 P. D., 497.) Soldier married Elizabeth P. Osman, about 1855, with whom he lived until she ran away with one Welch, while soldier was in the service. Elizabeth has been unheard of for many years. Soldier married claimant in 1868, and they lived together as man and wife continuously until his death in July, 1897. AVhile no divorce between' soldier and Elizabeth has been shown by primary evidence, yet under the decisions of courts in Missouri, where these parties resided, a divorce will be presumed in favor of the validity of the second marriage. (See case of Letitia C. A. Spencer, 13 P. D., 68.) Case of Theresia Schreve (9 P. D., 78) overruled. 378 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 14. Remarriage Prior to June 27, 1890. Marriage — Remarriage — Act June 27^ 1890. (Lucy P. Potter, widow, 9 P. D., 251.) The evidence in this claim shows that claimant remarried sub- sequent to the death of soldier and prior to the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, and fails to show that said second marriage was void or invalid. In the absence of direct proof that her said second husband had a wife living from whom he was not di- vorced at the date of his marriage to claimant, or that his former marriage was void, claimant has no title to pension under said act. Marriage and divorce — Act of June ^7, 1890. (Martha J. Kirk- land, alleged widow, 11 P. D., 73.) Claimant, the widow of Samuel B. Kirkland, married Abra- ham Jackson in 1865; Jackson obtained a divorce, a vinculo, from her in 1881. Held: The divorce decree did not put her back, as to the rights under the law, as the widow of Kirkland. She forever destroyed her status as the widow of Kirkland when she entered into a valid marriage contract with Jackson. 15. Slave Marriages. Marriage of slaves — Emancipatioyi — Evidence. (Marie L. Boss, alleged widow, 10 P. D., 36.) It being material to a proper determination of the question as to the validity of the claimant's marriage to the sailor to know whether the latter died before or after slaves were emancipated by the adoption of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, and the evidence on that point being conflicting, the action is set aside and the case remanded for further inquiry — by special examination if necessary. Mairiages of slaves — Legitimacy — Section Jf705. (Minors of Wil- liam Toller, 10 P. D., 75.) Only the minor children of a colored soldier by the woman with whom he lived in the relation of husband and wife up to the date of his enlistment, or to the date of his death if he died sub- sequent to his service, are entitled to a minors' pension under section 4705, Revised Statutes. Marriage — Colored and hidian soldiers in Kentucky. (Maria Merritt, colored widow, 10 P. D., 157.) A claimant, as widow of a colored soldier, is pensionable under the general law, and is entitled to his accrued pension, upon proving her marriage, as prescribed in section 4705, Revised Statutes; but in order to be pensionable under the act of June PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 379 27, 1890, she must prove a marriage which is valid under the laws of the place where they resided at the time of marriage or when the right to pension accrued. A slave marriage in Kentucky is not valid unless declared in conformity with the act of February 14, 1866, of the legislature of that State. Marriage and divorce — Slaves — Impedinient. (Amanda Fane, now Smith, as widow, 10 P. D., 254.) Claimant was pensioned as the widow of the soldier who died in the service, but her name was dropped from the rolls upon her remarriage by a ceremony with one Smith, alias Lyons. She now claims a continuance of pension on the ground that said Smith had a wife living at the time of his marriage to her. The evidence shows that Smith had a slave wife living, with whom he had not lived for some years prior to his marriage to claim- ant, but, having married claimant according to the forms of law, this former relation with Anna Parker had no legal effect on his marriage with claimant, and she was therefore his legal wife. Marriage of slaves in Missouri. (Garrison Pennoyer, alleged father, 10 P. D., 362.) At the date of the alleged marriage of claimant to the mother of soldier in the State of Missouri both were slaves, and so con- tinued up to the day of the mother's death in 1858. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of John- son t). Johnson (45 Mo., 595), their alleged marriage was void. Marriage of slaves in Kentucky — Act June ^7, 1890. (Mary Rid- dle, widow, 10 P. D., 441.) This appellant and the deceased soldier were colored persons residing in the State of Kentucky, and had been married while in a state of slavery in the year 1852, in accordance with the custom of slaves, but after their emancipation had taken no steps to ratify and legalize their subsisting slave marriage in the man- ner required by the statutes of that State. Held: That the appellant can not be recognized as the widow of the soldier and is not entitled to pension as such under the provisions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890. (See decisions in cases of Nannie Roach, 7 P. D., 80, and Lettie Haw- kins, 8 P. D., 22.) Marriage of slaves — Laws of Virginia. (Frank Fitchett, father, 11 P. D., 167.) Claimant was one of four slaves who cohabited with one Me- linda, also a slave, she bearing three of her pseudo husbands, in- cluding claimant, a child. The masters of Melinda and claimant refused to allow a ceremony of marriage to be performed. 380 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Held: The connection between claimant and Melinda was illicit, the evidence showing that there was no mutual intent on their part to consummate a bona fide slave marriage. The act of February 27, 1866, of the assembly of Virginia, re- ferred only to such colored persons who had undertaken and agreed, bona fide, to occupy the relation to each other of husband and wife. Mutual intent was a sine qua non to a bona fide moral matrimonial relation between slaves. The decision in the case of Daniel Bird (10 P. D., 105) is re- affirmed. Marriage of colored persons — Section Ji705^ Revised Statutes — Evi- dence. (Lucinda Harris, alleged widow, 11 P. D., 181.) A claimant who relies upon the rule of evidence provided in section 4705, Revised Statutes, must show, either that she lived with the soldier up to date of enlistment, wdien the latter died in the service, or, if otherwise, that she lived with him up to the date of death. Marriage — Colored persons — Emancipation proclamation. ( Rose E., alleged widow of Israel Smith, 11 P. D., 443.) Appellant, prior to the time of her alleged marriage to soldier, married one William Norris, in 1864, who was at the time a sol- dier in the United States Army, stationed at Portsmouth, Va., in territory in possession of the United States forces in which the President's emancipation proclamation of January 1, 1863, was effective, and claimant was also in said territory serving Avith the United States forces as laundress, the ceremony of marriage being performed by the chaplain of soldier's regiment. As it is shown that said Norris was still living at the time of claimant's alleged marriage to Smith, and no divorce being shown, said marriage was void. Marriage of slaves in Kentucky — Act J%ine 27^ 1890. (Eliza J. Ellis, widow, 12 P. D., 159.) The appellant and the deceased soldier were colored persons residing in the State of Kentucky, and had been married while in a state of slavery in the year 1862, in accordance with the custom of slaves, but after their emancipation had taken no steps to ratify and legalize their subsisting slave marriage in the manner required by the statutes of that State. Held: That the appellant can not be recognized as the widow of soldier, and is not entitled to pension as such under the pro- visions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890. (See decisions in cases of Nannie Roach, 7 P. D., 80 ; Lettie Hawkins, 8 P. D., 22; Maria Merritt, 10 P. D., 157, and Mary Riddle, ibid., 441.) I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 381 Marriage — Slaves in Kentucky. (Martha Maddox, claimant, 12 P. D., 447.) Claimant and soldier, residing in Kentucky, never having rati- fied their slave marriage, entered into that state in 1858, accord- ing to the act of July 14, 1866, of the legislature of said State, the same was not valid, and she has no pensionable status as the widow of said soldier. (See cases of Nannie Roach, T P. D., 80; Mary Riddle, 10 P. D., 441; Eliza J. Ellis, 12 P. D., 159; Estill V. Rogers, 1 Bush, Ky., 62, and Maria Merritt, 10 P. D., 157.) Marriage — Maryland — Slaves — Act June '27^ 1890. (Rebecca Reed, alleged widow, 13 P. D., 70.) Appellant and soldier cohabited as slaves until soldier's en- listment. When soldier returned from his service he was accom- panied by one Jane, who it is claimed was married to him by a ceremony in North Carolina; and he and Jane cohabited as husband and wife until his death. In the State of Maryland, where this appellant and soldier resided during their cohabitation, no marriage is legal without a religious celebration, and as claimant admits none was had in her case, she is not the legal widow of the soldier and is not pensionable under the act of June. 27, 1890. Marriage — Slaves — Laws of Texas — Act of August 7, 1882. (Lou- isa Davis, as widow. 13 P. D., 129.) If parties having married according to custom w^hile in a state of servitude continue to live together as husband and wife after their emancipation, it being apparent that they continue the marital tie after their legal incapacity to contract was removed, and if all the usual evidences of a common-law marriage existed after emancipation, such parties were, legally, husband and wife in the State of Texas; and under such a state of facts the constitution of 1869 and the act of August 15, 1870, have no bearing. Marriaqe — Slaves — Laws of Tennessee — Act August 7, 1882. (Na- than' Yerwood, father, 13 P. D., 140.) Under the law^s of the State of Tennessee a slave marriage was legal and valid and the issue thereof legitimate. (3 Heisk., 666; 91 Tenn., 97.) Marriage — Slaves in Louisiana — Evidence — Adulterous cohabi- tation. Hester A. Inghams, widow, 13 P. D., 173.) Claimant and soldier, slaves, lived together, with their master's consent, as husband and wife, for several j^ears prior and up to said soldier's enlistment. Soldier died in the service subsequent 382 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. to the adoption of the constitution of Louisiana of July 23, 180-1, after which claimant cohabited with several men, one of them, George Pierce, for thirteen years, both acknowledging and claiming to be husband and wife. Held: 1. That her marriage to soldier is sufficiently proved under section 4705 of the Revised Statutes and the laws of Louisiana, and on his death she became his widow. 2. That her adulterous cohabitation prior to the passage of the act of August 7, 1882, except with Pierce, w^as no bar to widow's pension; and 3. That her cohabitation with Pierce as his Avife for thirteen years, during which time they Avere recognized by their friends and neighbors as husband and wife, will be taken as evidence that they were married from the commencement of siich cohabi- tation, and her pension should cease at that date. Marriage — Colored persons — Evidence — Presumptions. ( Charlotte Gamble, widow, 14 P. D., 156.) The proof of the due and formal celebration, in the State of Texas, of the marriage of this claimant, an African or of Afri- can blood, to the soldier herein raises the presumption that he also was an African or of African blood, the statutes of that State making miscegenation a criminal offense, and prima facie establishes the validity of their marriage, which is not overcome by the evidence herein tending to show he Avas not of such blood. Marriage — Section 1^705^ Revised Statutes — E indence—C olored persons. (Adeline Andrews, minor, 14 P. D., 288.) As the marital relations of claimant's mother and the soldier did not continue up to the time of the latter's enlistment, she can not be deemed the lawful child of the said soldier under the provisions of section 4705, Revised Statutes. Marriage — Slaves — Laws of Florida — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Bettie Rankins, widow, 14 P. D., 383.) The slave marriage between claimant and sailor Avas of no force or effect under the laAvs of Florida, Avhere they resided, there having been no cohabitation between them after their emancipation. Marriage — Slaves — Remarriage — Evidence. ( Christie Ann Thompson as widow of Lewis Robinson, 14 P. D., 436.) The evidence shoAvs the claimant remarried at some time after the soldier's death, but fails to show Avhen such marriage Avas contracted. Her claim, therefore, must stand rejected for lack of proof of a material fact as to her pensionable status, viz, the date of said remarriage. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 383 Marriage — Slai'es — Laws of Missouri^-Evidence. (Minors of John Bluford, 14 P. D., 491.) A slave marriage was absolutely void in Missouri unless rati- fied subsequent to emancipation of the parties. The question of ratification of such a marriage is one of fact, to be determined from all the facts, circumstances, and conditions in the case, as shown by the evidence. Marriage — Slaves — South Carolina laws — Evidence. (Celia Rob- inson, Avidow, 14 P. D.,.53T.) While slaves, in South Carolina, lacked civil capacity to effect a marriage in its contractual sense, still there Avas a distinction between a " moral marriage," entered into with the master's con- sent, and an illicit and unlicensed sexual connection. The act of December 21, 1865, did not pretend to institute a new relation between slaves cohabiting as husband and wife, but merely " established " (i. e., confirmed or ratified) a marriage relation previously existing, lacking only the element of con- tractual capacity for its perfect consummation. Where slaves, between whom a moral marriage with the con- sent of the owner had been perfected prior to emancipation, were living together as husband and wife on December 21, 1865, the moral marriage was ratified and established, with all the civil effects of a marriage duly celebrated between freemen. But the evidence must point unmistakably to a prior existing moral mar- riage as distinguished from an unauthorized and illicit connec- tion between the parties. Marriage — Slai^es — Laws of Mississippi. (Betsey Jackson, widow. 15 P.' D., 11.) The evidence shows that soldier and the claimant lived to- gether as husband and wife according to slave custom from about 1859 until he enlisted in the Volunteer Army, in which he served from December 10, 1863, to February 5, 1866, when he returned and lived with her as her husband, their marital relations being recognized in the community until the spring of 1869, when he deserted her. Held: That the soldier was living with the claimant as lier husband November 25, 1865, and that section 3 of the act of November 25, 1865, of the legislature of Mississippi validated their slave marriage, their intent to live as husband and wife being shown by his conduct in returning to her after his dis- charge, and their cohabitation as husband and wife and recog nition as such in the community. Marriage — Tennessee laws — Slaves — Evidence. (Adaline Harris, alleged widow, 15 P. D., 30.) Soldier, a colored person, commenced living with Susan, as her 384 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. husband, in 1865, in the* State of Tennessee, at a time when he was in the military service of the United States, and she was, in fact, a free woman; said cohabitation continuing until 1872. He married claimant under the statute, in Tennessee, in 1878, living with her as her husband till his death in 1898. Susan died in 1880. Held: The act of the legislature of Tennessee, dated May 26, 1866, does not apply. The marital union of soldier and Susan constituted a valid and legal marriage. The facts fail to show a lawful marriage between soldier and claimant after the impediment was removed- by the death of Susan. (Jarnigan v. Jarnigan, 12 Lea, 293.) Marriage — Sla, ves — Tennessee — Decree of nullity — Jurisdiction — Evidence — Restoration. (Amanda Fane alias Lyons, insane widow, 15 P. D., 503.) 1. While the Department, in the adjudication of pension claims, giv^es the effect to a decree of nullity obtained out of a local court of competent jurisdiction, in a suit inter partes during the lifetime of the parties, that it does to a decree of divorce under the conditions determined in the case of Melissa Boyd (14 P. D., 279), a decree of nullity obtained either in a direct suit for nullity after the death of one of the parties to the marriage, or obtained collaterally in another proceeding, is not conclusive upon this Department, unless the statutes of the place of domi- cile expressly provide for the maintenance of a direct suit for nullity after the death of one of the parties to the alleged mar- riage. 2. Claimant, while the widow of the soldier and a pensioner under the general law, was ceremonially married in 1865, in Tennessee, to one James Lyons, or Smith, a former slave. Said Lyons and one Amy were married while in a state of servitude, with the consent of their owners, and cohabited in Tennessee as husband and wife. They were never divorced by the act or con- sent of the owners during slavery nor by the State after the attainment of freedom. Amy survived Lyons, who died in 1875. It is held that said marriage subsisted at the time of his at- tempted marriage to claimant and operated as a legal impedi- ment thereto. 3. A slave marriage in Tennessee, entered into with the con- sent of the owners, was a valid marriage for all purposes per- taining to pensions. Such marriages could not be lawfully dis- solved by the acts of the parties while in a state of slavery. The consent or the act of the master was essential to a lawful disso- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 385 liition of the union. Nor could a former slave, by his own act, annul such a marriage after emancipation and enter into other matrimonial unions. The act of May 26, 1866, merely applied to such slave marriages as had been lawfully contracted, and was simply declaratory as to the validity of such marriages, without reference to any personal act of ratification after eman- cipation, or without regard to the fact that said parties were liv- ing together at the time of the passage of said act. Following Brown v. Cheatham (91 Tenn., 97). 4. The case of Amanda Fane (10 P. D., 254) is overruled in all respects; the case of Margaret Gilbert (8 P. D., 249) is overruled in part and modified in part; and the case of Reuben Burton (11 P. D., 294) is modified in part. 16. Widows' Pension Act March 19, 1886. Marriage — Widou'^s pension — Act March 19, 1886. (Wilhelmina K. Monteton, widow, 10 P. D., 12.) As claimant was married to soldier subsequent to the passage of the act of March 19, 1886, viz, on September 4, 1891, the allow- ance of the rate of $8 was proper. The fact that appellant had a meretricious relation with the soldier prior to the passage of said act does not entitle her to the rate of $12 per month. MARYLAND LAWS. See Legitimacy: No. 2 (11 P. D., 278). See Marriage: No. 2(r) (10 P. D., 304, 431; 13 P. D., 49; 14 P. D., 530, and 15 P. D., 4G4) ; No. 15 (13 P. D., 70). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 P. D. See 10 P. D., 113, 307 ; 11 P. D., 279, 280, 281 ; 13 P. D., 51, 52, 73 ; 14 P. D., 348. MASSACHUSETTS LAWS. See Divorce: No. 3 (10 P. D., 434) ; No. 6 (12 P. D., 445; 14 P. D., 438). See Marriage: No. 2(s) (11 P. D., 114; 14 P. D., 45G ; 15 P. D., 402). See Tables of State Statutes for 11, 12, 14, 15 P. D. MATERIAL SERVICE. See Attorneys: No. 10 (14 P. D., 273) ; No. 11 (9 P. D., 137; 11 P. D., 429, 490 ; 12 P. D., 221 ; 15 P. D., 492). See Fee : No. 6 (9 P. D., Ill ; 10 P. D., 144). MASTERS AND MATES. See Service: No. 7 (15 P. D., 366). 13070—06 25 386 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. MEANS OF SUPPORT. See Dependent Parents : No. 4 (11 P. D., 297; 12 P. D., 129, 131, nr.i ; 472; 13 P. D., 241, 432; 14 P. D., 267, 271, 294). See Dependent Widow : No. 1 (9 P. D., 1, 2, 76, 249, 254, 299, 318, 320, 502; 10 P. D., 9, 67, 326; 13 P. D., 125; 15 P. D., 257, 329: No. 2 (12 P. D., 40) ; No. 3 (13 P. D., 31) ; No. 4 (12 P. D., 2(J(; ; 13 P. D., 448 ; 14 P. D., 80, 281, 360 ; 15 P. D., 127, 203, 324). See Dependent Brothers and Sisters : No. 1 (14 P. D., 4). MEDICAL REFEREE. See Jurisdiction : No. 4 (13 P. D., 465). See Pathological Sequence: No. 1 (10 P. D., 52). See Practice: No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS. References. See Disability: No. 2 (10 P. D., 276). See Jurisdiction: No. 1 (11 P. D., 348). See Practice : Nos. 3, 6 (9 P. D., 71 ; 10 P. D., 271). Index. 1. When certificate of, is null and void. 2. Order 74. 1. When Certificate of, is Null and Void. Medical examination — Examining surgeons. (Isaac Goodin, 9 P. D.,261.) A certificate of a medical examination, not sworn to, made by a person who had ceased to be an examining surgeon or a member of a board of examining surgeons, can not be considered the cer- tificate of a civil surgeon, but is without authority of law and null and void ; and a claimant, having submitted to such exami- nation under protest, should have the benefit of an examination by a duly authorized examining surgeon or a board of examining surgeons. 2. Order 74. Medical examinations — Commissioner of Pensions — Order 74 — New examinatio7is. (Oliver C. Whitehurst, 14 P. D., 450.) . The rate of pension now^ received by the claimant ($8) appears proportionate to the degree of inability shown for earning a support by manual labor. Some discretion as to the frequency and propriety of ordering medical examinations for claimants is properly vested in the Commissioner of Pensions as prescribed by order No. 74, ap- proved October 21, 1903. » PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 387 MENINGITIS. See Death Cause: No. 5 (11 P. D., 220). MENTAL DEFICIENCY. See Helpless Minor: No. 3 (12 P. D., 365; 10 P. D., 22, 224, 3G8 ; 15 P. D., 407, 478). MEXICAN WAR. See Bounty Land: No. 3 (15 P. D„ 561). See Commencement: Nos. 9, 10 (14 P. D., 420, 40). See Dependent Widow : No. 5 (10 P. D., 28; 15 P. D., :^24). See Disability: No. 11 (9 P. D., 341). See Powell's Battalion: No. 1 (9 P. D., 172). See Service: Nos. 4, 11, 14 (9 P. D., 28, 44, 108, 369: 10 P. D., 139, 425 ; 11 P. D., 21, 110, 163, 218 ; 14 P. D., 357 ; 15 P. D., 158, 544 ; 9 P. D., 96, 507). MICHIGAN LAWS. See Dependent Parents : No. 4 (11 P. D., 297). See Divorce: No. 7 (12 P. D., 303). See Marriage: No. 2 (t) (14 P. D., 417, 554; 15 P. D., 240). See 10 P. D., 195. See Tables, State Statutes, for 10, 11, 12, 13 P. D. MILITIA. See Service: No. 10 (9 P. D., 21, 422, 462; 10 P. D., 8, 19, 270; 11 P. D., 12; 12 P. D., 367, 385, 521). MILITARY AGE. See Age: No. 2 (11 P. D., 193, 240, 286). See Desertion: No. 2 (12 P. D., 80) ; No. 4(g) (15 P. D., 8) ; No. 5 (9 P. D., 488; 11 P. D., 193; 12 P. D., 137) ; No. 4(b) (15 P. D., 525). MINOR GRANDCHILDREN. See Accrued Pension: No. 3 (9 P. D., 393). MINORS. References. See Abandonment: No. 2 (7 P. D., 437; 8 P. D., 42). See Accrued Pension : Nos. 1, 2, 3 (9 P. D., 8, 276, 393). See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 8 (15 P. D., 48). See Age: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (11 P. D., 179, 193, 240, 286; 12 P. D., 511). See Commencement: No. 1 (9 P. D., 189, 226; 11 P. D., 431; 15 P. D., 79). See Declarations: No. 8 (14 P. D., 7). See Desertion: No. 2 (12 P. D., 80) ; No. 4(g) (15 P. D., 8) ; No. 5 (9 P. D., 488; 11 P. D., 193; 12 P. D., 137). 888 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. See Division of Pension: No. 1 (15 P. D., 82, 382) ; No. 12 (13 P. D., 422). See Estoppel: No. 4 (15 P. D., 47). See Fee: Nos. 1« and 22 (11 P. D., 496; 14 P. D., 199). See Fee Agreement: No. 1 (11 P. D., 150). See Guardians: No. 2 (12- P. D., 1). See Helpless Minor: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (9 P. D., 9, 26, 353, 452; 10 P. D., 22, 224, 368 ; 12 P. D., 365, 527 ; 14 I'. D., 331 ; 15 P. D., 407, 478). See Legitimacy: Nos. 1, 4 (9 P. D., 199; 11 P. D., 40). See Limitation: Nos. 4, 6 (10 P. D., 417; 14 P. D., 24). See Marriage: No 2(b) (15 P. D., 488). Index. 1. When widow is iioiipeiisionable. 2. Under act June 27, 1890. 3. Section 4702, Revised Statutes. 4. Act of March 3, 1865. 5. Proof of age. 1. When Widow is Nonpensionable. Minor's pension — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Minors of John Davis, 9 P. D., 151.) • The rule promulgated in the case of the minors of Lafayette Howard (8 P. D., 230) that "the minor children of a deceased soldier have no title to pension in their own right under the act of June 27, 1890, while the widow of such soldier is living and not remarried, unless such widow has forfeited her right to pen- sion under the act of August 7, 1882, or section 470(), Revised Statutes, notwithstanding such widow married such soldier sub- sequent to the passage of said act," is approved and adhered to. Minoj'^s pension — Construction third section act June 27, 1890. (Minors of George W. Douglas, 11 P. D., 448.) The grant in the third section of the act of June 2t, 1890, con- fers title upon the minor children of a soldier separate and independent of that of the widow, and contingent only upon her death or remarriage, and the proviso to said third section relative to the time of the marriage of the widow to the soldier does not extend to or affect the title of the minor children. Minors^ pension — Act of June 27., 1890 — Widoio. (Minors of James Still, alias James, 12 P. D., 25.) The fact that a deceased soldier left a widow surviving him who has not remarried is no bar to pensioning his minor children under 16 years of age under the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, such widow having married soldier subsequent to the passage of said act, and not being entitled to pension in her own right. Case of minor of Lafayette G. Howard (8 P. D., 230) is overruled. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 889 2. Under Act June 27, 1890. Minors pension — Acts of June 27^ 1890, and August 7, 1882. (Minor of Allen Biggers, 10 P. D., 124.) Where the applicant is claiming as the minor child of soldier by a former wife, deceased, co;itending that the surviving widow has never been charged with care and maintenance of the claim- ant, the rejection of the claim on the ground that the soldier left a surviving widow who is unmarried is not responsive to the question presented nor determinative of claimant's right. Minor^s pension — Age — Act of June 27, 1890. (George W. Robin- son, minor, 12 P. D., 511.) It appearing that this appellant was over the age of IG years at the date of the soldier's death, he has no title whatever to pen- sion under the provisions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890. Minor'' s pension — Act of June 27, 1890 — Widows. (Minor of ^ James R. Graves, 13 P. D., 148.) A minor child of a deceased soldier is entitled to pension in its own right, under the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, if such soldier left no widow having a pensionable status. Minor^s pension — Act of June 27, 1800 — Widotos — Marriage. (Minor of Allen B. Pierson, 13 P. D., 151.) » Under the accepted construction of the act of June 27, 1890, the minor child of a soldier has title to pension in his own right when there is no widow, and the fact that the parents were mar- ried after the passage of the act does not destroy or impair such title. Minors— Title— Act of June 27, 1890— Widows. (Christenia Rebenstorf, guardian, 15 P. D., 28.) The right to enforce minor's title under the act of June 27, 1890, where marriage took place prior to the passage of the act, is contingent upon the fact that the widow's title is extinguished ; and such title can not be extinguished save by death, remarriage, or a forfeiture under the act of August 7, 1882. (Sec. 4708, R. S., and act of August 7, 1882.) Opinion in the case of the minor of Still (12 P. D., 25), modi- fied and explained. 3. Section 4702, Revised Statutes. Instructions — Minors'^ pension — Limitation. (10 P. D., 465.) Section 4702 of the Revised Statutes does not require that application by minor children for pension thereunder be made while they are under 16 years of age. In claims where the children had attained the age of 16 years 390 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. before July 1, 1880, but had not filed application for the pension prior to that date, it is recommended that a judicial decision of the question should be obtained in a test case for the future guidance of the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Pensions, and Congress has been requested to enact a law which W'Ould permit this to be done, and until further directions consideration of such claims wiJl be withheld. 4. Act of March 3, 1865. Minors — Widows — Remarriage — Act of March 3, 1865. (Ehoda E. Tuten, widow, 12 P. D., 83.) Section 4 of the act of March 3, 1865, placed title in the minors, to the exclusion of the widow, provided the widow remarried without payment to her of any part of the pension; and said section was not repealed or modified, so far as such issue is con- cerned, by any act prior to March 30, 1868, the date on which the claim of the widow herein was rejected. 5. Proof of Age. Minors — Evidence — Proof of age — Approximate age. (Caroline Mills, widow, 12 P. D., 512.) Minors' pension having been withheld on account of claimant's inability to prove the exact dates of birth, a special examination is ordered to obtain, if possible, sufficient data from which to approximate said dates. A minor's pension should not be withheld because the exact date of birth can not be shown ; it is sufficient for all purposes, if the date can be approximated with sufficient certainty so that the Government does not pay beyond the period of pensionable minority. MINORS' PENSION. See Age : No. 3 (12 P. D., 511). See Marriage: No. 10 (10 P. D., 266). See Minors: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (9 P. D., 151; 10 P. D., 124; 11 P. D., 448 ; 12 P. D., 25, 511 ; 13 P. D., 148, 151 ; 15 P D., 28 ; 10 P. D., 465; 12 P. D., 83, 512). MINNESOTA LAWS. See Marriage : No. 2 (u) (15 P. D., 236) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 220). See Table of State Statutes for 15 P. D. MISSISSIPPI LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (v) (11 P. D., 266; 13 P. D., 57; 14 P. D., 476) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 393) ; No. 7 (9 P. D., 127) ; No. 15 (15 P. D., 11). See Tables of State Statutes for 10, 13, 14, 15 P. D. See 10 P. D., 106 ; 13 P. D., 58 ; 14 P. D., 477. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 391 MISSISSIPPI MARINE BRIGADE. See Service: No. 23 (13 P. D., 226). MISSOURI LAWS. See Divorce: No. 2 (13 P. D., G8) ; No. 5 (11 P. D., 499). See Division of Pension : No 13 (1.5 P. D. 240). See Legitimacy: No. (J (13 P. D., 414). See Marriage: No. 2 (w) (13 P. D., 59; 1.5 P. D., 86) ; No. 2 (kk) (10 P. D., 328) ; No. 3 (a) (10 P. D., 294; 12 P. D., 106) ; No. 12 (9 P. D., 243: 14 P. D., 442) ; No. 13 (14 P. D., 497) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., .362 ; 14 P. D., 491 ) . See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 P. D. MISSOURI MILITIA. See Service: No. 10 (10 P. D., 8, 19, 270; 12 P. D., ,367). MISTAKE. See Fraud and Mistake: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (9 P. D., 149, 455; 12 P. D., 116; 14 P. D., 57 ; 11 P. D., 308, 200). See Reimbursement: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (10 P. D., 84; 13 P. D., 201; 11 P. D., 395; 14 P. D., 152; 12 P. D., 394; 13 P. D., 13). See Restoration: No. 2 (14 P. D., 318). See Res Judicata: No. 2 (12 P. D., 179). MISSING IN ACTION. See Evidence: No. 10 (15 P. D., 500). MORAL CHARACTER. See Division of Pension : No. 18 (13 P. D., 383 ; 14 P. D., 177, 338 ; 15 , P. D., 21, 123. 136). MONTANA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (x). No case reported. MUSTER. See Declarations: No. 5 (10 P. D., 359). See Service: Nos. 10, 19, 20 (12 P. D., 521 ; 11 P. D., 282; 12 P. D., 500; 13 P. D„ 41 ; 14 P. D., 249). MUSTER OUT TO ACCEPT NEW COMMISSION. See Service: No. 17 (10 P. D., 188). MURDER. See Death Cause: No. 10 (12 P. D., 180). MYOPIA. See Disability: No. 5 (11 P. D., 185). 392 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. NAVY PENSION. See Division of Pension : No. 19 (14 P. D., 1). Index. 1. The ease of William Finley. 2. Reimbiirsemeiit. .S. Sections 4715. 47'>Ct, and 47.">7, Revised Statutes. 1. The Case of William Finley. Navy pensions — Sections Ji.756^ Jf757^ mid 1^813^ Rerised Statutes (William Finley, 11 P. D., 410.) This pensioner, being an inmate and beneficiary of the Naval Asylum, Philadelphia, Pa., the money benefit of $13.25 per month, to which he was entitled under section 475G, Revised Statutes, for -twenty years' service in the Navy, and in lieu of which he accepted the home in the asylum, was paid to the gov- ernor of that institution, by virtue of section 4813, Revised Statutes. He was granted leave for six months in 1896, and during such leave was permitted to receive the $13.25 per month in person. During this leave, also, he applied for and was al- lowed a pension of $8 per month for service in the Mexican war. under the act of January 29, 1887, but the first payment on this certificate, which included arrears from the date of the act, was paid to the governor of the asylum, by the pension agent, and pensioner was only allowed to draw the amount becoming due during the period of his leave from the asylum. It has been held in a decision by the Comptroller of the Treas- ury (3 Dec, Conip. of Treasury, 568) that — " Section 4813, Revised Statutes, requiring the pension of any navy officer, seaman, or marine entitled to a pension to be paid to the Secretary of the Navy during his continuance in a navy hospital only applies to such pension the benefit of which the pensioner was actually receiving at the time he was in the hos- pital, and does not include a pension acquired after he left the hospital." Following this ruling, while the pensioner was still construc- tively a beneficiary of the asylum, although on leave, yet he was not actually an inmate, and the recognition by the asylum au- thorities and pension agent of his right to draw his pension dur- ing the period of such absence carried with it the right to draw all of such pension, including the arrears under the Mexican war act, title to which w^as determined while he was not an inmate of the asylum. The payment of such arrears to the governor or treasurer of the asylum was erroneous, and to this extent the appeal is sustained. Other points in the appeal are overruled in accordance with former decisions (John Spencer, 7 P. D., 152; PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 398 i H Richard Ewing, 8 P. D., 44), except in so far as the scaling ■ clause of section 4757, Revised Statutes, is made to apply to ■ section 4756, Revised Statutes. ^ 2. Reimbursement. Navy pensions — Section Jf757^ Revised Statutes — Reimbursement. (James R. Bell, 14 P. D., 224.) The Commissioner of Pensions has no lawful power to direct recovery from a subsequent allowance certified to him by the Secretary of the Navy under section 4757 of the Revised Statutes, of any part of a similar allowance previously certified to him by said Secretary of the Navy and already paid by him, notwith- standing the Secretary of the Navy has, since the final payment of said first allowance, certified that he has reduced it and re- quested payment at the reduced rate; but where the Secretary of the Navy makes such certificate and request, as to a reduction of the rate, before action by the Commissioner of Pensions upon the first certificate authorizing payment at the rate from which reduced, the Commissioner should follow^ the later certificate and request and should pay only the reduced rate. 3. Sections 4715, 4756, and 4757, Revised Statutes. Navy pensions — Sections Jf715^ Jf756^ and Jf757^ Revised Statutes. (Elizabeth Sousa, widow, 12 P. D., 166.) Antonio Sousa, the deceased musician, was, in 1879, allowed a money benefit of $19.50 per month by the Secretary of the Navy, under section 4756, Revised Statutes. Said money benefit was paid by the Commissioner of Pensions under the provisions of said section until May, 1885, when it was withheld, for the rea- son that said musician was then allowed a pension under the act of July 14, 1862, said withholding continuing up to the death of said musician, in 1892. His widow applied to the Com- missioner of Pensions for payment to her of the sum so withheld, and said application was rejected in 1895, upon the ground that she was not entitled in law to file the same, said musician having never filed any such claim in his lifetime. On appeal to this Department said action of rejection was affirmed on August 22, 1901, upon the ground that " the widow has no title to a pension under section 4756, Revised Statutes, her husband having sur- rendered his title to pension under that section for a pension under the general law." Upon motion for a reconsideration of said departmental decision it is Held: 1. Although the money benefits granted by sections 4756 and 4757, Revised Statutes (section 6 of the act of March 2, 1867), are, in a general sense, pensions, they are not pensions 394 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. in the usual and ordinary acceptation of that term, and were intended to be a " further provision for the support " of the beneficiaries thereunder in addition to pensions granted them by other laws. Section -1:715, Revised Statutes, and the proviso to the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, prohibiting the allowance of more than one pension at the same time to the same person, constitute, therefore, no bar to the allowance of such money benefits to persons who are in receipt of pensions under other laws. (John Spencer, P. D., 107, and 7 P. D., 152; Richard Ewing, 8 P. D., 44; William Finley, 11 P. D., 410.) 2. The money benefits granted by sections 4750 and 4757, Re- vised Statutes (section G, act of March 2, 1867), are allowed by the Secretary of the Navy, who is, by the express terms of the law, the sole judge of who is entitled to receive them, and the Commissioner of Pensions acts in relation thereto in a purely ministerial capacity, and only as the authorized medium for the transmission or payment' of such money benefits to the person certified by the Secretary of the Navy as entitled to receive- them, his sole warrant for making such payments being the certificate of the Secretary of the Navy. The Commissioner of Pensions has therefore no authority in law to allow or to decide who are entitled to receive such money benefits, or to withhold the pay- ment of the same from the persons who have been duly certified by the Secretary of the Navy as entitled thereto. 3. The withholding by the Commissioner of Pensions of the payments of the money benefit allowed to the deceased musician, Antonio Sousa, by the Secretary of the Navy, under section 4756, Revised Statutes, from the date of the commencement of the pension allowed him under the general pension law, was wrong- ful and without authority of law. 4. The question whether the widow of said deceased musician is entitled to apply for and receive said withheld payments as in the nature of accrued pension, or as assets of the estate of her deceased husband, is one which the Commissioner of Pensions has no jurisdiction or authority under the law to determine, but the decision of such question rests exclusively with the Secretary of the Navy, to whom application should be made. 5. The decision of this Department in this case of August 22, 1901, is hereby vacated and set aside. 6. The rejection by the Pension Bureau on April 22, 1895, of the application of the widow for the amount of the withheld money benefit allowed her deceased husband under section 4756, Revised Statutes, upon the ground that no claim therefor by the husband was pending at the date of his death was error, for the reason that the Commissioner of Pensions had no jurisdiction PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 395 or authority to decide the question involved or to pass upon said application, and for the further reason that said ground of rejection was not applicable to the facts of the case, but the action rejecting said application is hereby affirmed upon the ground, however, that the Commissioner of Pensions had no jurisdiction or authority in law to hear or determine the same, and that said application should have been made to the Secretary of the Navy. 7. Order No. 380 of the Commissioner of Pensions, which was based upon the holding in the decision rendered in this case by the Department on August 22, 1901, and which is dated Septem- ber 9, 1901, is hereby abrogated and annulled, and the Commis- sioner of Pensions will be governed in the payment of money benefits allowed by the Secretary of the Navy under sections 4756 and 4757, Revised Statutes, by the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8, on page 85, " Practice of the Pension Bureau," and the practice thereunder which prevailed prior to the issuance of said order No. 380. NAVAL HOME. See Division of Pension : No. 19 (14 P. D., p. 1). NECESSITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. See Division of Pension : No. 9 (12 P. D., 336) ; No. 13 (13 P. D., 77, 205, 233, 302 ; 14 P. D., 136, 385 ; 15 P. D., 246, 450, 496). NEBRASKA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (y) (15 P. D., 211). NEW HAMPSHIRE LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (z) (13 P. D., 213; 15 P. D., 258). See Tables of State Statutes for 12, 13, 15 P. D. See 12 P. D., 440 ; 13 P. D., 215. NEVADA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (yz). No case reported. NEW MEXICO LAWS. See Marriage: No. 11 (15 P. D., 392). NEW JERSEY LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (aa) (13 P. D., 403). See Table of State Statutes for 15 P. D. 396 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. NEW YORK LAWS. See Decree of Nullity: No. 1 (10 P. D., 238) ; No. G (15 P. D., 227). See Divorce: No. 7 (12 P. D., 303; 14 P. D., 173). See Legitimacy: No. 1 (9 P. D., 199). See Marriage: No. 2 (bb) (10 P. D., 389; 11 P. D., 212; 12 P. D., 300, .340; 13 P. D., 1.57; 14 P. D., .305; 15 P. D.. 208, 413). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 P. D. See 10 P. D., 241, 242, 243; 12 P. D., 311, 514; 14 P. D., 20, 177. NEGLECT. See Attorneys: No. 11 (9 P. D., 137) ; No. 13 (14 P. D., 172, 228) ; No. 14 (11 P. D., 492) ; No. 20 (15 P. D., 359). See Practice : No. 1 (15 P. D., 96). NEGLIGENCE. See Death Cause : No. 2 (15 P. D., 303) ; No. 3 (9 P. D., 439). See Line of Duty : No. 8 (14 P. D., 203). NEUBALGIA. See Pathological Sequence: No. 25 (15 P. D., 139). NEW EXAMINATIONS. See Medical Examinations: No. 2 (14 P. D., 450). NEW DISABILITY. See Commencement: No. 4 (9 P. D., 313). See Evidence : No. 6 (9 P. D., 214 ; 10 P. D., 46). NO FUND, NO FEE. See Fee : No. 4 (9 P. D., 402 ; 11 P. D., 149). NONRESIDENTS— CLAIMS BY. Nonresidents — Adjudication, (Henry McFadger, 9 P. D., 437.) The law-making power has made no distinction between appli- cants for pension by reason of their place of residence since the war, and there should be none in the execution of the law; and all orders or instructions which, in effect, suspend or prevent a prompt and impartial adjudication of claims filed by nonresi- dents are revoked, and there shall be no distinction between claims filed by those who reside in this country and those who reside in foreign countries. NO BENEFIT. See Pbactice : No. 15 (11 P. D., 455). I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 897 NOTICE. I References. See Divorce : No. 3 (10 P. D., 434). See Division of Pension: No. 2 (11 P. D., 288) ; No. 6 (12 P. D., 370) ; No. 10 (15 P. D., 132). See Election : No. 1 ( 10 P. D., Gl ) . See Evidence: No. 11 (11 P. D., 523, 524). See Fee: No. 11 (12 P. D., 239) ; No. 21 (13 P. D., 37, 39). See Helpless Minor: No. 3 (15 P. D.^478). See Practice: Nos. 17, 20 (12 P. D., 44, 157, 225; 13 P. D., 206). See Rate and Rating : No. 12 (9 P. D., 165). See Reduction : No. 1 (9 P. D., 48, 121). See Restoration : No. 5 (15 P. D., 475). Index. 1. Dropping from the rolls. 2. Of reduction illegal. 1. Dropping from the Rolls. Notice — Droppi7ig from the rolls. (Spencer Payne, 9 P. D., 50.) As the evidence tends to show that claimant failed to receive notice of the proposed dropping from the rolls and to appear for a medical examination, the action dropping his name from the rolls is reversed and the case remanded for further adjudication, that claimant may have an opportunity to file rebutting evidence and to be examined. 2. Of Reduction Illegal. Notice — Reduction — Increase — Acts July IJf^ 1892, and December 21, 1893. (Silas Renick, 12 P. D., 21.) Appellant was a pensioner on the roll at the rate of $50 per month (first grade) . His pension was increased to $72 per month under the provisions of the act of June 16, 1880. On April 4, 1896, his rate of pension was reduced to $30 per month, and on December 1, 1898, he was restored to the rate of $50 per month from April 4, 1896, date of reduction. It is held that such reduction of the rate of pension was illegal for the reason that the notice sent to pensioner was not such notice as is prescribed by the act of December 21, 1893, as it did not " contain a full and true statement of any charges or allega- tions " upon which it was proposed to reduce his rate of pension, and that the action restoring him to the rate of $50 per month from date of reduction (April 4, 1896) was illegal, as no medical examination was had showing a decrease of appellant's disability until July S, 1898, to which date he was legally entitled to remain on the rolls at the rate of $72 per month. NULLITY. See Marriage: No. 2 (a) (10 P. D., 118). 398 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. NUNC PRO TUNC DECREE. See Divorce: No. 1 (10 P. D., 1). NORTH CAROLINA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (cc) (12 P. D., 287). See Table of State Statutes for 12 P. D. NORTH DAKOTA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (dd). No case reported. OATHS OF ENLISTMENT. See Age: No. 2 (11 P. D., 286). OBSTRUCTION OF BOWELS. See Pathological Sequence: No. 10 (13 P. D., 105). (EDEMA. See Disability: No. 6 (11 P. D., 505). OHIO LAWS. See Legitimacy : No. 8 (13 P. D., 541 ; 14 P. D., 428). See Decree of Nullity: No. 3 (11 P. D., 271) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 28(>). See Divorce: No. 4 (13 P. D., 236). See Division of Pension: No. 12 (13 P. D., 120) ; No. 20 (15 P. D., 143). See Marriage: No. 2 (ee) (10 P. D., 211; 15 P. D., 225) ; No. 9 (15 P. D., 308). See Tables of State Statutes for 12, 13, 15 P. D. OFFICER. See Desertion : No. 4 (e) (15 P. D., 94) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 276). See Jurisdiction : No. 5 (13 P. D., 416). See Line of Duty: No. 12 (11 P. D., 28). ONE CLAIM, ONE FEE. See Fee: No. 5 (9 P. D., 117). ON A PASS TO VISIT FRIENDS. See Line of Duty: No. 13 (12 P. D., 142). ON A PASS TO HUNT. See Line of Duty : Nos. 1, 10 (9 P. D., 227 ; 11 P. D., 55). ORDER 74. See Medical Examinations: No. 2 (14 P. D., 450). ORDER 192. See Practice: No. 6 (11 P. D., 95), I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 399 ORDER 352. See Practice: No. 4 (9 P. D., 285, 290). ORDER 354. See Fee: No. 21 (13 P. D., 37, 39). i MNiYEHSITY TTraT or THE £li^QRWj See Limitation: No. 3 (10 P. D., 421). ORIGIN. References. See Anterebellion Service: No. 1 (9 P. D., 220). See Death Cause: No. 15 (15 P. D., 58). See Disability: No. 1 (9 P. D., 133). See Line of Duty: Nos 12, 15 (11 P. D., 28; 13 P. D., 358; 14 P. D., 518). Index. 1. Incubation — Typhoid fever. 2. Prior soundness. 3. Dropping — Error as to origin. 1. Incubation — Typhoid Fever. Origin — Disability — Incuhatioii — Typhoid fever. (Andrew Forbes, 11 P. D., 329.) This claim was rejected for the reason that, acording to the records of the War Department, the appellant became ill in eight days after his enlistment, and that, according to the evidence filed, his sickness was typhoid fever; and that, acording to medical authorities, the period of eight days is too short for the incubation of said disease, which was, therefore, not contracted in the service, and consequently any disability arising therefrom is not pensionable. Held: That the facts in the case show that said record is erro- neous as to the date of commencement of the soldier's illness, and that the statement of the Bureau relative to the period of incubation of typhoid fever is incorrect. Action reversed. 2. Prior Soundness. Origin of disahility — Prior soundness — Line of duty. (Charles W. Hickerson, 12 P. D., 298.) Appellant was discharged on account of disability due to dis- ease of eyes upon the recommendation of a board of survey, who reported that while working as a fireman in an electric power house in Washington over two years prior to his enlist- ment he was (as he says) fire blinded, so that he could not work for two months, which condition of his eyes became aggravated after his enlistment and detail to the boiler room of the U. S. S. St. Paul. Held: That disease of eyes did not originate in the service and line of duty. 400 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 3. Dropping — Error as to Origin. Origin — Disease of eyes — Dropping. (James C. Hall, 13 P. D., 1.) Under a misapprehension of facts, or on account of an error of judgment based on insufficient testimony, the appellant was origi- nally granted a pension under the general law at the rate of $6 per month for "disease of left eye;" but in pursuance of sub- sequent and more reliable evidence going to show that such cause of disability was not of service origin his name was dropped from the pension rolls. It is shown that the only disease of left eye is the same as that which also affects the right eye, namely, conical cornea, or conicity of the cornea (keratoconus or keratoglobus ; staphyloma pellucidum), " the cause of which is not known " (Norris) ; but for the relief of which iridectomy is usually resorted to, and such operation was performed on each eye in this case, with poor results in one eye and but partial success in the other. Held: That the condition of the appellant's eyes is not shown to have originated in the service, and that, in view of the nature of the disease in question, it is not believed to be susceptible of proof as of service origin. OREGON LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (ff) (11 P. D., 427). See Service: No. 3 (15 P. D., 390). See Table of State Statutes for 11 P. D. ORPHAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS. See Dependent Brothers and Sisters. OPINION EVIDENCE. See Evidence: No. 7 (13 P. D., 450). OPINION OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS. See Vicious Habits : No. 2 (15 P. D., 427). PARDON. See Desertion: No. 4 (f) (14 P. D., 352). PASS TO HUNT. See Line of Duty: Nos. 1, 10 (9 P. D., 227; 11 P. D., 55). PASS, ON A, TO VISIT FRIENDS. See Line of Duty: No. 13 (12 P. D., 142). PATHOLOGY. See Rerating: No. 2 (12 P. D., 188). --J PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 401 PATHOLOGICAL SEaUENCE. Beferences. See Death Cause: No. 5 (10 P. D., 202; 11 P. D., 62, 106, 220, 388, 440, 459) ; No. 8 (12 P. D., 354) ; No. 11 (12 P. D., 342) ; No. 12 (13 P. D., 372) ; No. 14 (13 P. D.. 342). See Disability: No. 5 (11 P. D., 185). See Increase: No. 4 (12 P. D., 59). Index. 1. Practice. 2. Arteriosclerosis arid chronic diarrhea. 3. Asthma and cerebral hemorrhage. 4. Cancer and malarial poisoning. 5. Disease of the heart and erysipelas. 6. Malarial poisoning and disease of the heart. 7. Typhoid fever. 8. Disease of rectum and nnemic ])oisoning. 9. Inflammation of bladder and hernia. 10. Obstruction of bowels and insanity. 11. Paralysis and gunshot wound. 12. Paralysis and lightning stroke. 13. Paralysis and rheumatism. 14. Blindness and chronic diarrhea. 15. Ulcerations and syncope. 10. Gunshot wound, malarial poisoning, and disease of spine. 17. Catarrh and bronchitis. 18. Insanity and sunstroke. 19. Paralysis agitans and chronic diarrhea. 20. Cause of disability. 21. Tuberculosis and catarrh. 22. Disease of kidneys — special act. 23. Chronic ascending neuritis. 24. Amputation — Paralysis agitans. 25. Paralysis — Neuralgia. 20. Paraplegia — Gunshot wound of leg. 27. Disease of kidneys — Injury to ankle. 1. Practice. Pathological sequence— Practice i (Thaddeus P. Reig, 9 P. D., 444.) The soldier is now pensioned at $16 per month for " rheuma- tism and resulting disease of heart and total deafness of left ear." He claimed increase on the ground that the rheumatism had affected his spinal column. On examination he was shown to be suffering from locomotor ataxia. The claim for increase was rejected on the ground that disease of the spinal cord could not result from rheumatism. From this action the claimant appeals, contending — First. That he has established by competent evidence that the locomotor ataxia did result from the rheumatism for which he is pensioned. 13070— 06— -26 402 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Second. That the symptoms upon which the chiim for rhenma- tism was both based and established were but the earlier mani- festations of the cord lesion, and that the name of the pensioned disability should be changed by substituting locomotor ataxia for rheumatism. Third. That he is suffering from both rheumatism and loco- motor ataxia; that both disabilities are of service origin, and that the evidence upon which his claim on account of the former disability was established should be accepted as also showing the service origin of the latter. Held: First. That although it is almost universally conceded by the medical profession that rheumatism and locomotor ataxia have one or more etiological factors in common, and also, in the preatavic stage of the latter disease, certain similar subjective symptoms, they are, nevertheless, universally considered b}^ all recognized medical authorities as entirely separate and distinct diseases, ^\'\i\\ no similarity whatever in their pathological anatomy, and are not regarded by the most modern observers as having any causal relation to each other, either pathological or otherwise. Second. That inasmuch as both rheumatism and tabes dorsalis are shown to exist, the contention that the latter Avas mistaken for the former is untenable. Third. That in view^ of the fact that the Department does not take primary action in any claim for pension, the contention that the evidence on file also establishes the service origin of locomotor ataxia can not be considered until the merits of the claim shall first have been passed upon by the Bureau of Pensions. Pathological sequence — Evidence — Medical referee. (Sarah J. May, widow, 10 P. D., 52.) Generally, where an attending physician appears to be in good standing his diagnosis of the patient's disease is accepted as cor- rect; but when it comes to a question as to whether one disease resulted from another or not the ipse dixit of such attending physician is not received unless in accord with the generally accepted teachings of medical science (as to which the Depart- ment will be advised by the medical referee) or unless it derives some peculiar and extraordinary value from such physician's professional standing and experience. Pathological sequence — Death cause — Practice — Witnesses — E vi- dence. (Ann E. Johnson, widow, 12 P. D., 425.) 1. The soldier was pensioned for lumbago, and no other affec- tion was alleged or shown to be due to his military service. His death in 1899 was ascribed by the attending physician to suppres- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 403 sion of urine. The evidence shows that the primary cause of the urinary trouble was enlargement of the prostate gland. The pensioned disability was not a material factor in the fatal issue, either directly or indirectly. Lumbago, or rheumatism, is not recognized as a cause of enlargement of the prostate gland. 2. The official statements of examining surgeons are only such statements as are made in their official reports or directly in con- nection therewith. A^Hien an examining surgeon happens also to be (or to have been) the attending physician of a soldier, and in his capacity as such physician furnishes testimony in support of any claim for pension based upon the service of such soldier, his testimony is not official. 3. Additional evidence in pension claims is that which is both executed and filed in addition to evidence which w^as previously executed and filed ; it is also such evidence as may have been exe- cuted prior to the adjudication of a claim if the subsequent filing thereof is satisfactorily accounted for. When testimony has been intentionally withheld after its execution and not filed until the claim has been adjudicated, it can not be regarded as addi- tional. Pathological sequence — Injury to hack — C erehro-spinal sclerosis — Practice. (Oscar Getman, 15 P. D. 150.) The appellant, who is pensioned for " varicocele of left side and injury to back and right hip," is also suffering from some obscure disease of the central nervous system, which, according to the facts presented in the case, has existed since 1884 at least, and w^hich now totally disables him. It is now contended that inasmuch as " the spine is in the back, and the principal part of the back," it must necessarily have been involved in the aforesaid " injury to back." Such contention, however, is error, as the spinal column does not occupy so much space in the posterior aspect of the trunk but that many injuries of much severity both can and do occur in said region without involving either the vertebrae or the cord inclosed therein. In the case at bar it is not shown that either the spinal column or cord was ever injured in any manner whatever; but it is sufficiently well shown that the existing nerve lesion is a multiple cerebro-spinal sclerosis, and that it is not due either directly or indirectly to appellant's military service. The approval for " injury to back " and the contention based thereon emphasize the advisability of indicating more definitely in such general approvals the nature of the conditions accepted as of service origin. 404 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 2. Arterio-sclerosis and Chronic Diarrhea. Pathological sequence — Arterio-sclerosis and chronic diarrhea. (Harvey Clark, 12 P. D., 453.) The claimant is now pensioned under the act of June 27, 1890. He was formerly pensioned under the general law for piles. His claim for renewal and for additional disability from chronic diarrhea was favorably adjudicated, but it stands rejected on the ground of " no benefit." He alleged that disease of eyes and disease of heart were results of chronic diarrhea. It is shown that he suffers from general arterio-sclerosis, and that the affec- tion of the eyes, first noticed in 1897, is due to retinal hemor- rhages from this cause. Arterio-sclerosis is " a physiologic process of old age " mainly, and there is no recognized j)atho- logical relation between this affection and chronic diarrhea as alleged. 3. Asthma and Cerebral Hemorrhage. Pathological sequence — Asihvut and cerehral hemorrhage. (Phi- lena E. Tibbetts, widow, 12 P. D., 443.) The appellant's husband was a pensioner on account of asthma, among other causes, and died of cerebral hemorrhage during an unusually severe paroxysm of said disease. Held: That the increased intravascular pressure caused by the asthma produced the fatal hemorrhage. 4. Cancer and Malarial Poisoning. Pathological sequence^C ancer and malarial poisoning. (John C. Holtorf, 12 P. D., 422.) The claimant is pensioned, on account of malarial poisoning and resulting disease of liver, at the rate of $12 per month. The official examination under the claim revealed no material increase of disability from said cause. An induration or tumor at the pyloric end of the stomach Avas described in the report of said examination, and it appears from the statements of the claimant and the attorney that this condition has been diagnosticated as cancer. There is no apparent or probable pathological relation between this disease and the pensioned disability. 5. Disease of the Heart and Erysipelas. Pathological sequence — Disease of heart and erysipelas. (Annie M. Keiler, widow, 12 P. D., 491.) The attending physician during his last illness testified that the immediate cause of the soldier's death was "paralysis of heart, induced by erysipelas (facial)." l>EN&lON AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 405 The decedent never filed a claim for pension under the general law, but did file a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, and was pensioned at the maximum rate thereunder for rheumatism, dis- ease of heart, and other causes of disability, which he himself stated were " contracted since the war." His widow, who was also granted a pension under the act of June 27, 1890, based her claim for pension under the general law on the alleged ground that inasmuch as the soldier had an attack of erysipelas during his military service and had a number of similar attacks subsequent to his discharge — during one of which he died — his death was due to his service. Held: 1. That the evidence in the case is insufficient to show that while in the service, or at any time subsequent thereto, the soldier had facial erysipelas; but does show that the year pre- ceding his death he suffered from valvular disease of heart, re- sulting from rheumatism, which was probably the cause of his demise. 2. That erysipelas is recognized as an acute, self -limited, in- fectious disease — due to a micro-organism — which generally ter- minates within two weeks; and, though prone to recur, each recurrent attack is due to a fresh invasion of the erysipelas-pro- ducing organisms, and is not induced by, or a result of, a prior attack. An attack of such disease in 1894, even though it ex- isted and caused the soldier's death, could not therefore have been a result of his military service. 6. Malarial Poisoning and Disease of the Heart. Pathological sequence — Malarial poisoning and disease of heart. (Phoebe A. Clough, widow, 12 P. D., 486.) The soldier was pensioned for a gunshot wound of the right hand and malarial poisoning. No other affection was alleged or shown to have been due to his military service. He died sud- denly, in 1898, from dilatation of the heart, which was secondar}^ to valvular disease of that organ. There was no pathological relation between the malaria poisoning and the disease of heart which proved fatal, nor does it appear that the former affection was a material factor in causing the soldier's death. 7. Typhoid Fever. Pathological sequence — Typhoid fever — Bacteriology. (Charles W. Snowman, 12 P. D., 118.) Since the discovery and isolation — by Eberth, in 1880 — of the bacillus of typhoid fever, the views of the medical profession, according to Keen and other recent writers, as to the pathology not only of the fever itself, but also of its complications and 4()G PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. sequels, recent and remote, have undergone an entire revolution, and much is now understood that was formerly inexplicable. The diffusion of this micro-organism is so wide that " scarcely a single tissue or organ of the body escapes invasion by the typhoid bacilli " (Keen). The complications and sequels of typhoid fever are so numerous and so varied that both medical and surgical divisions thereof are now recognized. " Excepting the laryngeal complications and sequels of ty- phoid 'fever, the most frequent are those connected w^ith the bones " (Keen) ; and modern bacteriology now furnishes a sci- entific method of demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of a pathologic connection between enteric fever and a suspected sequel thereof. Held: That inasmuch as the appellant in the case at bar con- tracted typhoid fever in the military service and line of duty, and subsequent to his muster out from such service, certain sup- purative conditions arose, involving the bones and other tissues, especially of the right leg, necessitating the amputation of the right foot, which conditions, it is contended, are sequelae of the said fever, further efforts — through thorough special and med- ical examinations, respectively — should be made to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, the present condition of the soldier was caused by the enteric fever of service origin. 8. Disease of Rectum and TJraemic Poisoning. Pathological sequence — Disease of rectmn and urmmic poisoning. (Euth E. Robinson, widow, 13 P. D., 153.) The soldier was pensioned for disease of rectum, incurred in 1862, and no other affection of service origin was established. He died in 1899 of ura^mic poisoning, the consequence of cystitis and a train of symptoms which were primarily due to senile enlargement of the prostate gland. There was no necessary or probable pathological relation betw^een disease of rectum, on account of which he was pensioned, and the conditions which resulted in the soldier's death. 9. Inflammation of Bladder and Hernia. Pathological sequence — Inflammation of bladder and hernia. (Rhoda Harriman, widow, 13 P. D., 184.) Inflammation of bladder and retention of urine due to an en- larged prostate gland, from which the soldier died, can not be regarded as in any manner related to a hernia on account of which he had been granted pension, and said fatal disease is not shown as otherwise due to his military service. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 407 10. Obstruction of Bowels and Insanity. I Pathological sequence — Insanity — Obstruction to howels — Death cause. (Katie Cole, widow, i;3 P. D., 105.) The soldier was a pensioner on account of insanity (paretic dementia ) , and died of acute obstruction of the bowels. As the intestines were paretic as well as other parts of the body, it is not illogical to regard the intestinal obstruction as due to the disability for which soldier was pensioned. 11. Paralysis and Gunshot Wound. Patholof/ical sequence — Gunshot wound a7id paralysis agitans — Increase. (Franklin Savage, 13 P. D., 107.) The present rate in the case, third grade, appears to be fully adequate to the degree of disability, due to pensioned causes, " gunshot wounds of right hip and back and left leg." The paralysis agitans from which he is also suffering, and which was first manifested upon medical examination in 1896, thirty- four years subsequent to the receipt of the wounds for which the soldier is pensioned, constitutes a large part of the degree of his present disability; but inasmuch as such additional cause of disability is not a result of said wounds, as alleged, nor otherwise of service origin, its existence can not affect the rate in the case. 12. Paralysis and Lightning Stroke. Pathological sequence — Lightning stroke and paralysis. (Emily C. Bridge, widow, 13 P. D., 162.) The records of the War Department show that soldier in- curred a sunstroke while in the service, and the evidence shows that he was struck by lightning and that there was a paralytic condition of the left leg immediately following; that he con- tinuously thereafter manifested symptoms 6f paralysis of left side and was mentally weak, the history of the case unmistak- ably pointing to a disease of the brain. He died from a brain lesion, followed by general paralysis, June 26, 1899. Held: That as there is a strong element of doubt as to the cause of the fatal brain trouble, such doubt will be resolved in favor^of the claimant and the death cause will be accepted as due to soldier's military service. 13. Paralysis and Rheumatism. Pathological sequence — Aid and attendance — Rate. (George R. Beatty, 13P. D., 192.) Appellant is now pensioned at the second-grade rate for " rheumatism and resulting disease of left knee and shoulder and partial paralysis." It was found at the last medical exami- nation to which he was subjected, and from the date of which 408 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. said grade rate was allowed, that he was ^Iso suifering from " a modified general paresis," and from locomotor ataxia ; but neither of these conditions can be accepted as a sequel of pen- sioned causes, nor are they otherwise established as of service origin. Although a rating of but $30 per month (second grade) was recommended in the certificate of such examination, the objective conditions described therein, and the collateral evi- dence on file as well, vshow a condition of total and permanent helplessness, due, however, in part to said nonpensioned causes; but after careful consideration of all the facts in the case the Department is of the opinion that the allowance of the $50 rate instead of the second-grade rate from the date of said examina- tion was warranted by reason of causes on account of which he was pensioned, notwithstanding the said recommendation of the examining surgeon. 14. Blindness and Chronic Diarrhea. Pathological sequence — Disability — Evidence — Demonstration — Blindness. (Harvey Keed, 13 P. D., 307.) A pensionable degree of disability from " chronic diarrhea and ' gunshot wound of face resulting in impaired vision of left eye " has not been shown since the date of filing the claim on account of such alleged causes. Held: That occasional subacute attacks of diarrhea at more or less infrequent intervals do not, in the absence of any patholog- ical lesion of the digestive organs or of the alimentary canal or tract, constitute a pensionable degree of disability; that neither in this claim, nor in any other claim for pension on account of either monocular or binocular blindness, can the report of a com- petent expert examining surgeon (specialist), who, by the use of approved methods, demonstrates that the claimant is a malin- gerer, be controverted by the mere dicta of another specialist, or other specialists, or of any number of physicians who have em- ployed no such tests, but base their opinions upon the subjective symptoms or history of the case, as related by the claimant, and that lay testimony is of no value whatever in such class of claims. Neither blindness nor any serious impairment of vision of the left eye is shown to exist in this case, nor could any loss of vision due to optic neuritis have been caused in the manner alleged. 15. TJlcerations and Syncope. Pathological sequence — Ulcerations and syncope — Evidence — Bur- den of proof — Death cause. (Mary M. Johnston, widow, 13 P. D., 112.) The soldier — who was pensioned at the second-grade rate for " injury to right leg and resulting ulceration," alleged to have I PEKSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 409 been incurred in 18G2 — died suddenly on the night of June 10, 1899, while entirely alone and without having previously ex- hibited any symptoms of apparent illness. It is contended that his death was caused by syncope, due to septicaemia resulting from said condition of right leg. The facts presented in the case, however, are such as in the judgpient of the Department preclude the idea that the soldier's death was caused in the manner alleged, and although such facts fail to satisfactorily show the actual cause of death the burden of proof on that point does not rest with the Government in order that the contentions of the appellant may be held to be untenable. 16. Gunshot Wound, Malarial Poisoning, and Disease of the Spine. Pathological sequence — Gutwhot wound, malarial /poisoning, and disease of spine — Locomotor ataxia or ataxic paraplegia. (George W. Wheeler, 14 P. D., 542.) This claimant's disease of the spinal cord being, under the evidence and medical authorities cited, of uncertain diagnosis and etiology, but a disease which, however diagnosed, may, under said medical authorities, be possibl}^ due pathologically to one or more of the causes on account of which he is pensioned, and other pos- sible causes of such disease being shown by the evidence not to exist or to have existed, a pathological connection between said disease and said causes on account of which he is pensioned should be held to be sufficiently established in his claim for increase on account of said disease alleged as such result. A medical sequence need not more than any other fact be estab- lished beyond all doubt, but a reasonable probability from all the facts, circumstances, and conditions shown that a certain patho- logical relationship exists in the case is sufficient. In determining the question of such probability the opinions of the medical division of the Pension Bureau are only advisory to and not binding upon either the Commissioner of Pensions or the Secretary, w^hose sole and exclusive province it is to decide all such questions for themselves upon the entire evidence, such opinions, and medical authorities. Reopening of a rejected claim for increase upon affidavits filed more than 90 days after notice of such rejection is proper under the rules of practice, and such affidavits may not properly be con- sidered on appeal as to the merits of said rejection. 17. Catarrh and Bronchitis. Pathological sequence— ^ atarrh and hronchitis — Practice. (Wil- liam H. Carr, 14 P. D., 201.) Chronic nasopharyngeal catarrh av as the only existing affec- tion of the respiratory orgaps, and bronchitis is not accepted as 410 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. a result thereof, but rather the result of disease of heart. Under the evidence and the practice of the Bureau the approval for dis- ease of the respiratory organs Avas too broad and not Avarranted. 18. Insanity and Sunstroke. Pathological sequence — Insanity — Sunstroke — Rate, (John B. Shafer, insane, 14 P. D., 89.) The existing insanity, first positively shown in 1883, was not a result of sunstroke, as alleged, which occurred in 1802. The present rate of pension is adequate for the pensioned disabilities. 19. Paralysis Agitans and Chronic Diarrhea. Pathological sequence. (George B. Cock, 10 P. D., 39.) Neither paralysis agitans nor cerebro-spinal sclerosis can be accepted as a pathological sequence of chronic diarrhea or any sequelae thereof. 20. Cause of Disability. Pathological sequence — Cause of disability. (George W. Mowery, 11 P. D., 307.) The certificate of medical examination shows the condition of appellant's eyes, on account of which he claims a pension, is due to congenital refractive errors and not to his military service, and that the rejection of his claim under the general law was therefore correct. Action affirmed. Rate — Pathological sequence — Examining surgeons^ ratings. (An- drew G. Cunningham, 11 P. D., 317.) The appellant, who is pensioned at the rate of $12 per month for rheumatism and resulting disease of heart, filed a claim for increase, w^herein he alleged that varicose veins of both legs had resulted from disease of heart, and claimed that inasmuch as the board of surgeons by which he was examined pursuant to said claim had rated his disabilities at third grade ($24 per month), he was legally entitled to such rate from the date of such exami- nation. Held: That the existing rate in the case was fully commensu- rate with the degree of disability found at said examination as a result of rheumatism and disease of heart ; that the varicose veins of both legs have not been showm to be a sequence, either from a pathologic or mechanical standpoint, of disease of heart, and that no authority to determine what rate or rates of pension shall or shall not be allowed in any claim, or class of claims, for pen- sion has ever been conferred upon examining surgeons, either by law, rule, or regulation. I I I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 411 Pathological sequence — Blindness — Disease of heart. (James Fitz- garield, 11 P. D., 462.) The soldier is a pensioner on account of disease of heart, in- jury to right shoulder and resulting muscular atrophy, paralysis of right arm and resulting total disability of same. He is totally blind from glaucoma, which is alleged to be a result of neuralgia, caused by a fall from his horse, by which he incurred the injury to his shoulder. The facts in the case, supported by medical authority, warrant the conclusion that said blindness is due to spinal injury, or to disease of heart, or both. Action reversed. 21. Tuberculosis and Catarrh. Death cause — Pathological sequence — Catarrh. (Florence E. Foster, widow, 11 P. D., 480.) Soldier's death from pulmonary tuberculosis can not be ac- cepted as due to nasopharyngeal catarrh, on account of which he was pensioned at $2 per month, and it not appearing that catarrh was otherwise a factor in the death cause, nor that said cause was the result of his army service, the rejection of the claim on that ground was proper. 22. Disease of Kidneys — Special Act. Pathological sequence — Disease of kidneys — Gunshot wound — Rheumatism — Diarrhea — Malarial poisoii — Special act. (Net- tie N. Seaver, widow, 15 P. D., 249.) The fatal disease of kidneys was evidently of recent origin and not in any way pathologically connected with the affections which Avere accepted as of service origin — gunshot wound of right arm, rheumatism, diarrhea, and malarial poisoning. None of said affections appears to have been a material factor in caus- ing the soldier's death. The claimant or beneficiary under a special act of Congress which is defective must look to Congress for relief. 23. Chronic Ascending Neuritis. Pathological sequence — Chronic ascending neuritis. (Enoch Alex- ander, 11 P. D., 151.) Appellant is now pensioned at $36 per month on account of a gunshot wound of left leg and resulting total disability of same. The right leg is also shown to be totally disabled and it is claimed by the appellant to be a result of the condition of his left leg. It is satisfactorily shown that the total disability of the left leg was caused by a chronic ascending neuritis, produced by the 412 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. gunshot wound, and that the disease has crossed over and in- volved the right leg, and the disability resulting from said neuritis is such as would warrant the allowance of a higher rate of pension than he now receives. Action reversed. 24. Amputation — Paralysis Agitans. Pathological sequence — Aynputation — Paralysis agitans — Aid and attendance — Evidence. (James Duross, 13 P. D., 222.) The soldier is pensioned at the rate of $45 per month for gun- shot wound of right arm, resulting in amputation so near the shoulder joint as to prevent the use of an artificial limb. He developed paralysis agitans one month after amputation, and as the science of pathology warrants the acceptance of said disease as a result of amputation, same can be so accepted under the circumstances shown. The evidence and the report of the medical examination, made October 21, 1902, show that he requires the frequent and period- ical personal aid and attendance of another person to the extent that he can neither dress nor undress himself unaided; that he is compelled to have his food prepared or cut up for him at the table before he can eat it, and that he requires such frequent and periodical aid and attendance of another person in other ways by reason of the conditions named, hence he is entitled to the next available rate, or $50 per month, from the date of the ex- amination showing such degree of disability. 25. Paralysis — Neuralgia. Pathological sequence — Paralysis — Neuralgia. (Abram J. Rus- sell, 15 P. D., 139.) Paralysis (hemiplegia) occurring at the age of 62 years, and thirty- four years after discharge, can not be accepted as a sequel of neuralgia or piles for which soldier was pensioned. 26. Paraplegia, Neuritis, and Gunshot Wound of Leg. Paraplegia — Neuritis — Gunshot wound of leg. (Christian Kinter, 15 P. D., 440.) Appellant has paraplegia or paralysis of both limbs from the hips down. There being no other apparent cause shown for this condition, it is concluded that the same is due to a gunshot wound, on account of which he is pensioned, the missile entering a little below the anterior spinous process of the ilium, passing backward and downward, emerging a little above and posterior to the trochanter major, in close proximity to the sciatic nerve of the right leg, injuring the same, resulting in ascending neu- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 413 ritis, and that this inflammatory condition crossed to the sciatic nerve of the left side through the sacral plexus, producing a descending neuritis of the sciatic nerve in the left leg, hence a paraplegic condition of both legs. 27. Disease of Kidneys and Injury to Ankle. Disease of kidneys — Injury to ankle. (Josephine Hirsch, mother, 15P. D., 443.) Disease of the kidneys, from which the sailor died, October 5, 1902, twenty days subsequent to his discharge, at the age of 18 years, in the. judgment of the Department was due to injury to right ankle and results which occurred while in his naval service and in line of duty. PARALYSIS. See Death Cause: No. 12 (i:i P. D., 372). See Increase: No. 4 (12 P. D., 50). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 11, 12, 13, 19, 24, 25 (13 P. D., 107, 102, 102; 10 P. D., 30; 13 P. D., 222; 15 P. D., 130). PARALYSIS AGITANS. See Pathological Sequence: Nos 10, 24 (10 P. D., 30; 13 P. D., 222). PAYMENT OF PENSION. References. See Guardian : Nos. 1, 3 (0 P. D., 55; 15 P. D., 364). See Insane Persons: No. 1 (10 P. D., 100) ; No. 3 (15 P. D., 430). Index. 1. To guardian of minor cliilid. 2. May be adjusted properly. 3. Act of March 3, 1800. 1. To Guardian of Minor Child. Payment of pension — Widow — Guardian. (Josephine Burns, widow, 9 P. D., 197.) Appellant filed an application in behalf of herself and minor children, and at the same time procured a next friend to file application as guardian for said minors. Her application was denied and that of the guardian allowed. After the youngest child arrived at the age of 16 years, her case was reopened and allowed to begin from the time said youngest child became 16 years old. Claimant now asserts title to that which was paid to the guardian. Held: Her contention is untenable because she procured the filing of the application by the guardian, received the money paid thereunder, and disbursed the same. 414 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 2. May be Adjusted Properly. Payment of pension — Rating — Section ^715^ Revised Statutes-. (Joshua W. Mattick, 10 P. D., 281.) Pensions being allowed under the general law and act of June 27, 1890, it was proper to adjust the ratings so as to prevent overpayment or double payment of the same pension or the payment of both pensions for the same period of time, and such deductions and reissues as avoided this and preserved to pen- sioner the highest ratings to w'hich he was adjudged entitled Avere not erroneous. 3. Act ot March 3, 1899. Payment of pension under act of March 3^ 1899. (Ellen Lake v. Daniel Lake, 13 P. D., 22.) When a pensioner refuses to execute his pension voucher for the purpose of depriving his w4fe (who has been awarded one- half of his pension under the act of March 3, 1899) of her part of his pension, payment may be made to her upon her supple- mental voucher upon satisfactory proof to the Commissioner of Pensions of the existence of the pensioner during the period for which she claims payment. PAYMENT. See Accrued Pension: No. 7 (12 P. D., 208).. See Attorneys: No. 12 (11 P. D., 49) ; No. 18 (10 P. D., 403). See Division of Pension: No. 10 (15 P. D., 132) ; No. 14 (13 P. D., 363). PENNSYLVANIA LAWS. See Division of Pension: No. 12 (13 P. D., 297). See Marriage : No. 2(gg) (12 P. D., 300 ; 14 P. D., 212 ; 15 P. D., 495) ; No. 3(a) (12 P. D., 106) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 497; 12 P. D., 326) ; No. 12 (10 P. D., 162). See Tables of State Statistics for 10 P. D., PENDING CLAIM. See Insane Persons: No. 1 (10 P. D., 109). See Limitation: No. 2 (9 P. D., 152). Pending claim — Accrued pension. (Samuel Fitzpatrick, deceased, 9 P. D., 171.) Where soldier's application was not filed with the Commissioner of Pensions until after his death, he can not be said to have had an application pending, and his widow is not authorized under any existing law to prosecute soldier's claim for pension. I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 415 PENSION FUND. See Accrued Pension: No. 4 (11 P. D., 351). See Guardian: No. 2 (12 P. I).. 1). See Jurisdiction: No. 2 (12 P. D., 147). PERMANENT AND SPECIFIC. See Disability: No. 10 (14 P. D., 182). PERSONAL ALTERCATION. See Line of Duty: No. 2 (9 P. D., 274, 406). PILOT. See Service: Nos 7, 12 (9 P. D., 304, 34<>, 300; 10 P. D., 1C2). POISON. See Death Cause: No. 2 (15 P. D., 303) : No. 3 (9 P. D., 439) ; No. 14 (13 P. D., 342). See Line of Duty: Nos. 4, 19 (10 P. D., 37(>; 12 P. D., 209; 15 P. D., 315). POISONING. I See Death Cause: No. 2 (15 P. D., 303) ; No. 5 (9 P. D., 439) ; No. 14 (13 P. D., 342). See Line of Duty: Nos. 4, 19 (10 P. D., 376; 12 P. D., 269; 15 P. D., 315). POWER OF ATTORNEY. See Attorneys : No. 1 (10 P. D., 143; 14 P. D., 186) ; No. 5 (9 P. D., 19, 38, 362) ; No. 15 (9 P. D., 338) ; No. 16 (13 P. D., 27) ; No. 18 (10 P. D., 236; 15 P. D., 317). POWELL'S BATTALION. PowelVs Battalion^ Mexican war — Act January 5, 1893. (Zach- ariah Winkler, 9 P. D., 172.) The provisions of the act of Congress of January 5, 1893, pro- viding an increase of the rate of pension granted on account of services in the Mexican war to survivors of said war, are appli- cable to survivors of Pow^elPs battalion, Missouri Mounted Volun- teers, Mexican war, who are . pensioned under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891, for service during the war with Mexico, and such surviving members of said organization are entitled to receive the increased rate of pension provided by said act of January 5, 1893, under the same conditions, limitations, and regulations as other Mexican war survivors who are pensioned under the provisions of the act of January 29, 1887, Depart- 41(3 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. mental decision of June 10, 1896, on Brookman's appeal (7 P. D., 260) overruled, and ruling No. 237 of the Commissioner of Pen- sions modified. PRACTICE. References. See Appeals : Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (9 P. D., 132, 164 ; 10 P. D.. 250, 374: 11 P. D., 519; 13 P. D., 170, 400 ; 15 P. D., 265, 410). See Attorneys : No. 1 (10 P. D., 143 : 14 P. D., 186) ; No. 2 (15 P. D.. 109) ; No. 4 (10 P. D., 191; 13 P. D., 413; 14 P. D., 83) ; No. 10 (14 P. D., 273, 328) ; No. 11 (9 P. D., 340; 11 P. D., 429, 490; 12 P. D., 221) ; No. 13 (14 P. D., 172, 228) ; No. 15 (9 P. D., 338) ; No. 19 (14 P. D.. 269). See Bounty Land: Nos. 1. 2, 4 (12 P. D., 184; 14 P. D., 415; 15 P. D., 62). See Declarations: No. :* (14 P. D., 426) ; No. 9 (15 P. D., 529). See Dependent Parent: Nos. 2, 9 (10 P. D., 78; 11 P. D., 171, 247; 15 P. D., 18, 100, 106, 172, 194). See Dependent Widow: No. 4 (15 P. D., 127, 203). See Desertion: No. 2 (11 P. D., 13) ; No. 4 (b) (14 P. D., 375). See Disability: No. 3 (9 P. D., 263). See Divorce: No. 4 (13 P. D., 208). See Division of Pension : Nos. 4, 9, 10, 12, 15 (12 P. D., 263 ; 13 P. D., 134, 270, 347, 424 ; 14 P. D., 120, 127, 230, 234, 313, 367, 472 ; 15 P. D., Ill, 132, 218, 298, 557). See Election: No. 1 (10 P. D., 61). See Evidence: No. 3 (9 P. D., 150). See Fee: Nos. 2, 12 (9 P. D., 39; 10 P. D., 167). See Increase: No. 5 (13 P. D., 455). See Jurisdiction : Nos. 3, 4 (9 P. D., 273; 13 P. D., 465). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 1, 17 (9 P. D., 444; 12 P. D., 425; 14 P. D.. 201; 15 P. D., 150). See Rate and Rating : Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8 (9 P. D., 326, 435; 10 P. D., 185, 397, 414 ; 12 P. D., 294, 331 ; 15 P. D., 262, 550). See Reduction: No. 1 (9 P. D., 48). See Reimbursement: No. 3 (12 P. D., 289). See Rerating: Nos. 2, 4, 6 (12 P. D., 188; 14 P. D., 215; 15 P. D., 299, 332, 333). See Service: No. 25 (13 P. D., 288). Index. 1. Appeals. 2. Declarations. 3. Medical examinations. 4. Order 352. 5. Readjudication. 6. Reopening. 7. Restoration. 8. Attorneys. 9. Commencement. 10. Dismissal. 11. Rates. Index— Continued. 12. Dropping. 13. Commencement of in- crease. 14. Merit claim not consid- ered on appeal as to fee. 15. No benefit. 16. Restoration and increase claims. 17. Notice — Act March 3, 1899. 18. Short certificate, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 417 Practice — Continued. Index — Continued. 19. Increase. 20. Rule 14. 21. Rule 16. 22. Rule 19. 23. Brief face — Combined rates. 24. Interlocutory order Index — Continued. 25. Reconsideration — Rule 13. 26. Special examination. 27. Jurisdiction — Res judi- cata. 28. Legal points to be ad- judicated. 1. Appeals. Practice — Appeals — Disability . (William Rogers, 9 P. D., 399.) 1. Rule 6 of Rules of Practice in appeals applies only to cases Avhere clerical errors are made in rating, and not to cases where the question is one of judgment on the evidence (Charles Yokel, 8P. D., 431). 2. This claimant's capacity for earning a support is not im- paired in a degree entitling under said act to any higher rate than $6 per month, the rate of pension he is now receiving. Practice — Appeals — Neglect — Act ^ March 3^ 1899 — Estoppel. (Frederick W. Hyatt, 15 P. D., 96.) ^Vhere, prior to the adoption of any rules of practice governing appeals from Bureau action in cases under the first three pro- visos of the act of March 3, 1899, a pensioner delayed his appeal for over five months,, the payments regularly made to a claimant pursuant to Bureau action prior to appeal will not, in the ab- sence of fraud or mistake of fact, be disturbed where the only Bureau error committed is error of judgment as to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence. Practice — Appeal — Final action — Brief face. (Patrick Cava- naugh, 15 P. D., 362.) A decision that medical evidence filed in accordance with the requirements of the Bureau under Order No. 74 does not warrant a medical examination of the claimant is " final action." from which an appeal will lie. Such action should have the sanction and be vouched for by the medical referee and should be formally recorded upon the " brief face." 2. Declarations. Practice — Declarations — Act June ^7, 1890. (Mary Haffner, widow, 9 P. D., 169.) This widow's declaration for pension under section 3 of the act of June 27, 1890, executed in 1897, can not be held to be a duplicate of a declaration filed in 1893 under the same act and rejected, but should be treated as a new original declaration. The mere statement by the Commissioner in a communication to 18070—00 27 418 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. claimant that her claim had been previously rejected is not a rejection of the new claim nor such final action as furnishes a basis for a new appeal. Practice — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Section Jf702^ Revised Statutes — Declarations. (Josephine F'uerst, widow, 15 P. D., 486.) . A claim for pension under the general law and a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, are separate and distinct claims, and the two can not be prosecuted under one declaration. If a declaration for pension possesses all of the essentials of and is clearly intended as a declaration under the general law, and the claim has been adjudicated as such, it can not subsequently be made the basis of a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, and vice versa. 3. Medical Examinations. Practice — Act June 27^ 1890 — Medical examination. (Charles A. Armstrong, 9 P. D., 71.) A medical examination should not be held to show the extent of alleged disabilities under a declaration filed under the act of June 27, 1890, until claimant has shown at least a prima facie title under said act. 4. Order 352. Practice — Increase — Oruer 352. (John W. Granless, 9 P. D., 285.) Order No. 352, issued by the Commissioner of Pensions Decem- ber 24, 1897, which prohibits the consideration of increase claims within one year of date of last adjudication in the case, is re- voked and set aside, and the rule contained on page 52 of Walker's Treatise on the Practice in the Pension Bureau, hold- ing that such claims would not be adjudicated until six months after the allowance of the original claim, though when declara- tions therefor were filed claimants should be ordered for exami- nation as soon as practicable, reestablished. Practice — Increase — Order No. 352. (George Buck, jr., 9 P. D., 290.) As order No. 352, from the enforcement of w^hich this appeal was filed, has been revoked and set aside, the contentions of appellant are no longer tenable. The appeal is therefore dis- missed. 5. Readjudication. Practice — Readjudication — Appeal. (Leroy F. Wood, 9 P. D., 64.) Under departmental decision in the case of James Quigg (8 P. D., 248), claimant should first make application to the Pen- sion Bureau for readjudication in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 6, 1896. As such application has not been made, the motion for reconsideration is overruled. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 419 6. Reopening. Practice — Reopening. (Luther Case, 9 P. D., 72.) As a matter of practice a claimant is entitled to file at any time new evidence and request action thereon by the Commis- sioner of Pensions. If said new evidence, either considered separately or in connection with previously fiJed evidence, es- tablishes a prima facie case, the Commissioner of Pensions will order a new medical examination as a matter of course, and after the rej^ort of said examination has been received will take action on all of the evidence. If a request is made to the Com- missioner of Pensions for a new medical examination without the filing of new evidence, such rejection goes to the sound dis- cretion of that official, who will, nevertheless, take action upon such request. In such cases an appeal will lie to the Secretary only from the action taken by the Commissioner of Pensions. Practice — Reopening — Medical examinations. (Andrew G. Clark, 10 P. D., 271.) Where, under the general law, claim for pension is made on account of general debility, a medical examination is held which discloses no cause of disability, and thereupon the claim is re- jected, the fact that a condition of general debility is shown to exist subsequently does not warrant action reopening the claim. Practice — Reopening — Act of March 6', 1896. (William Heinrichs, 10 P. D., 321.) The refusal to consider the widow's application for readjudica- tion of her husband's claim in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 6, 189G, on the ground that he (the husband) had no claim for read judication on file at the date of his death, was error. A rejected claim may be reopened at any time, upon the filing of proper evidence for that purpose, either by the original claim- ant or by the person who succeeds to his rights. Practice — Reopening — Limitation — Order 192. (William W. Wilds, 11 P. D., 95.) The certificate of medical examination made under the claim for increase does not show a degree of disability due to pensioned causes that is equivalent to the loss of a hand or a foot for man- ual labor, which must be shown before the appellant can receive the next higher rate of pension. As the evidence referred to by the appellant was not filed within ninety days after the letter of rejection had been mailed, the action of the Bureau in refusing to reopen the rejected claim was proper and in accordance with the rules of practice. Actions affirmed. 420 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Practice — Reopening — Limitation. (Jonathan Kinsey, 11 P. D., 112.) The rule of limitation for reopening rejected increase claims in cases where an appeal was filed before the rule had run is sus- pended during the period from the date of filing the appeal and the date of the decision of the Department thereon. 7. Restor option. Practice — Restoration — Renewal. (James W. Murray, 9 P. D., 210.) Pensioner was receiving $12 per month on account of loss of sight of left eye, and was dropped from the rolls in 1895. He filed claims for renewal and was restored to the rolls from Octo- ber 20, 1896, at $6 per month, for the same disability. The med- ical referee expresses the opinion that he should not have been dropped, but his rating only reduced. Refusal to restore him from date of dropping at reduced rating is based on the fact that he has only filed claim for renewal and not for restoration. It is held that this action is chiefly technical, that the words " re- newal " and " restoration " in applications are generally inter- changeable, and that this claimant, having applied for renewal, and admitted to be entitled to restoration, should be restored from the date of dropping without other application. Practice — Restoration — Increase. (Charles I. Reed, 9 P. D., 288.) A claim for restoration can not be regarded as a claim for in- crease. (Thomas Mallon, 8 P. D., 208.) 8. Attorneys. Practice — A ttorneys — Special examinations. ( Ascha Hughes, mother, 10 P. D., 390.) The relations between attorney and client in a pension claim are not such as to give the attorney all of the same rights that he would have under the common law. The mission of and the procedure under a special examination is such as to preclude the absolute necessity of the presence of an attorney to protect either his own or his claimant's rights. The prevailing practice of allowing an attorney to be present and to take part in a special examination, if so requested by claimant, is all that is necessary under the circumstances, for the Govern- ment is not in any wise a defendant in such proceedings. 9. Conunencement. Practice — Commencement — Act March 6, 1896. (Preston M. Rohn, 10 P. D., 73.) " Whenever a claim for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, has been or shall hereafter be rejected, suspended, or dismissed. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 421 and a new application shall have been or shall hereafter be allowed in such claim, such pension shall date from the time of filing the first application, provided the evidence in the case shall show a pensionable disability to have existed or to exist at the time of filing such first application," whether claimant has invoked the aid of the act of March 6, 1896, or not. 10. Dismissal. Practice — Dismissal — Appeals — Act June 27^ 1890. (Charles A. Sampson, 10 P. D., 458.) The filing of a second apj^lication for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, while an appeal from the rejection of a former application is pending is not a good ground for dismissing the appeal unless the applicant expressly or impliedly asks to have the first application reconsidered. Medical examination under the first application showed no disability except a slight affection of the heart, and that was not found at a subsequent examination. Age, 57 years; height, 5 feet 10^ inches; weight, 165 pounds. Held: That a pensionable disability did not exist at the date of filing the first application. Practice — Appeals — Dismissals. (Nancy Ritter v. Abraham Rit- ter, 13 P. D., 40.) Pensioner's contention that claimant was not in necessitous circumstances having been conceded by the Bureau after special examination, the appeal is dismissed. Claimant is entitled to thirty days from receipt of a copy of this order in which to appeal from the last Bureau action. Practice — Dismissal — Act March 3, 1899. (Cora A. Fanning v. Edwin P. Fanning, 13 P. D., 161.) Claimant's contention that she was in necessitous circumstances having been conceded by the Bureau after special examination, her appeal is dismissed. Pensioner is entitled to thirty days from receipt of a copy of this order in which to appeal from the last Bureau action, under the act of March 3, 1899, conceding her contention. (See Ritter V. Ritter, 13 P. D., 40.) Practice — Dismissal — Act of March 3, 1899 — Division of pension. (Annie Delozier v. Luke A. Delozier, 13 P. D., 176.) The contention of the pensioner appellant having been con- ceded by the Bureau January 5, 1903, his appeal is dismissed and claimant allowed thirty days in which to appeal from the Bureau action dropping her name from the rolls. 422 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Practice — Dismissal — Division of pensions — Act March J, 1899. (Kachel Melton v. Austin P. Melton, i:^ P. D., 211.) When, after appeal in cases under the first, second, or third provisos of the act of March 3, 1899, the case is remanded to the Bureau for further action, readjudication, and report, and the Bureau reports that the action appealed from is receded from, or that the contention of the appellant is conceded to be well taken, the appeal will be dismissed and the appellee will be entitled to thirty days in which to appeal from the adverse Bu- reau action, during which period suspension of payment of the one-half of the pension in controversy will be continued, unless the right of appeal is sooner waived by the appellee. Appellant's contention that he did not desert claimant having been conceded by the Bureau in this case, after special examina- tion the appeal is dismissed. Practice — Dismissal — Rule 20 — Act March 3, 1899. (Nancy E. Lynch v. Philip Lynch, 13 P. D., 347.) Claimant's contention in her appeal having been conceded by the Bureau, after special examination, and her claim allowed, her appeal is dismissed in accordance with rule 20 of Practice, and departmental decisions in the cases of Ritter v. Ritter (13 P. D.,40) ; Fanning v. Fanning (Ibid., 161) ; Delozier v. Delozier (Ibid., 176) ; and Melton v. Melton (Ibid., 211). 11. Rates. Practice — Rates — Disability. (Chauncey Davis, 10 P. D., 12.) 1. Rule 6 of the second division of the Rules of Practice was never intended to apply except in cases of such errors of rating as were patent upon their face, and wdiich would naturally be corrected by the Commissioner of Pensions upon his attention being called to such errors; but where the determination of a rate is the result of judgment on the evidence, and not merely the result of a clerical mistake, the rule has no application. 2. As the medical examinations show no appreciable disability, a rate of $6 per month is adequate under the act of June 27, 1890, though claimant is 60 years of age and his system is relaxing by reason thereof. 12. Dropping. Ms.harge — Desertion — Practice. (Jerome Woodin, alias Frank Allen, 11 P. D., 13.) In 1891 pension was allowed under the act of June 27, 1890, when the practice required only a final honorable discharge from the service; therefore the desertion of an applicant for pension under said act from his first service was no bar to pension. The PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 423 practice having been changed so as to require an honorable dis- charge from all service contracted to be performed during the war of the rebellion, pensioner's name was properly dropped from the rolls on the ground that he was a deserter. 13. Commencement of Increase. Practice — Act June 27^ 1890 — Commencement — Increase. (Am- brose T. Sanguinette, 11 P. D., 451.) In the adjudication .of an original claim for pension under the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, wherein several decla- rations have been filed, upon the allowance of the claim the pen- sion must commence from the date of filing the declaration first filed at a time when a pensionable condition was shown to exist ; but if, at the time of the adjudication of such claim, a certificate of medical examination made under the claim shows a condi- tion entitling claimant to a higher rate of pension than existed at the time of the filing of the declaration under which the allow^- ance was made (such original allowance being below the maxi- mum rate) the rate of pension should be increased from the date of such certificate of medical examination (modifying para- graph 6 on page 95 of A Treatise on the Practice of the Pension Bureau, approved by the Secretary of the Interior on April 9, 1898). 14. Merit Claim not Considered on Appeal as to Fee. Practice — Appeal — Fee and merit claim. (James Hughes, father, claimant, T. W. Tallmadge, attorney, 11 P. D., 325.) The action of the Bureau in a claim for pension upon its merits can not be reviewed upon appeal from action of the Bureau in the matter of fee. 15. No Benefit. Practice — Rejection — No benefit — Disahility. (Martin Wagner, IIP. D., 455.) 1. A rating of $6 per month is not commensurate with dis- abilities evidenced by underweight, emaciation caused by mal- nutrition and neurasthenia, nasal catarrh, and a severe case of bronchial catarrh. 2. A claim under the act of June 27, 1890, which is not fully legally adjudicated has not reached final action. 3. No claim under the act of June 27, 1890, should be rejected on the so-called ground of " no benefit," but the pensioner should be allowed to elect under which law he will draw his pension, notwithstanding the fact that the ratings approved "or or allowed under each law are not the same. 424 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 16. Restoration and Increase Claims. Practice — Act of March 6', 1896 — Increase — Restoration. (Andrew J. Brown, 11 P. D., 122.) The practice of refusing to consider a claim for restoration to a former rate, or one which invokes the act of March 6, 1896, when such are included in a claim for increase under the act of June 27, 1890, is unsound practice. Paragraph 3, page 102, and paragraph 1, page 103, of "A treatise on the practice of the Pen- sion Bureau," approved by the Secretary of the Interior on April 9, 1898, are accordingly amended. 17. Notice— Act March 3, 1899. Practice — Appeal — Notice — Act of March 3, 1899. (Hantch v. Hantch, 12P. D.,44.) Appeals in claims under the first, second, and third provisions of the act of March 3, 1899, must be accompanied by due proof of service of notice of the appeal upon the appellee, before such appeal will be docketed and considered as an appeal, and the failure to furnish such proof is ground for the dismissal of the appeal. (See Ellis i\ Ellis, 11 P. D., 288; Conover v. Conover, 11 P. D., 524; and Loughry v. Loughry, 11 P. D., 523.) Practice — Notice of appeal — Service — Act of March 3, 1899. (Har- riet A. Van Houten v. Ralph R. Van Houten, 12 P. D., 157.) In the absence of due proof of service upon the appellee, or his or her attorney, of a copy of an appeal from Bureau action under the first, second, or third provisos of the act of March 3, 1899, there being no waiver of notice, or appearance by or on behalf of the appellee, the appeal w^ll be dismissed. (See Ellis v. Ellis, 11 P. D., 288; Loughry v. Loughry, Ibid., 523; Conover v. Con- over, Ibid., 524.) In future such appeals, unaccompanied by due proof of service, in the absence of waiver of notice or appearance on the part of the appellee, will not be filed or docketed, but will be promptly re- turned to appellant, or his or her attorney of record, for com- pliance with Rule 14 of Practice, approved November 2, 1901. When the appeal is perfected by due proof of service, it will be filed, docketed, and numbered, and the Bureau of Pensions, the appellant, and appellee promptly notified thereof, in accordance with Rule 15 of Practice, approved November 2, 1901. Practice — Appeals — Act of March 3, 1899. ( Addie Yates v. David Yates, 12 P. D., 225.) Appeals in cases under the act of March 3, 1899, when per- fected in accordance with Rule 14, Rules of Practice, which re- quires that they should be accompanied by proof of service of the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 425 same on the appellee, will be transmitted to the Bureau of Pen- sions, whereupon the necessary steps for the suspension of pay- ment of half of the pension due or to become due will be taken, and thereafter, not later than thirty days from the date of filing the appeal, such appeal, and the papers in the case, together with the Commissioner's report thereon, will be returned to the Depart- ment. Practice — Appeal — Rule 2 of Rules of Practice — Division of pen- sion^ act of March 3, J 899. (Minerva C. Scott r. Samuel Scott, 12 P. D., 411.) 1. The appeal in this case assigns no specific error on the part of the Bureau in the allowance of the claim for division of pen- sion, as required by Rule 2 of Practice, but as an examination of the evidence fails to disclose any error in the Bureau action appealed from, the same is affirmed. 2. Good practice, as well as a proper regard for the rights of the appellees, in cases under the act of March 3, 1899, requires a strict compliance with said rule 2 on the part of appellants, and in future a failure on the part of the appellants to comply with said rule will be deemed sufficient reason for dismissing their appeals. 18. Short Certificate. Practice — Short certificate — Disability. (Charles L. Starr, 12 P. D., 254.) If a soldier, sailor, or marine who served in the recent war with Spain incurred, contracted, or received any cause or causes of disability in such service and line of duty which persisted for a sufficient length of time subsequent to the dates of his dis- charge and of filing his application for pension, respectively, the duration of which can be satisfactorily determined by com- petent evidence, to amount to a source of actual disability, there is no provision of law or rule of practice by which he can prop- erly be denied a pensionable status during the time he was so disabled subsequent to his filing a formal application for pension : Provided^ That such pensionable degree of disability was not a mere temporary condition of short duration, indefinite existence, and of unknown or illy-defined extent. (See case of Cassilly C. Cook, 12 P. D., 188.) In the event the disabilities which the evidence adduced in this case tend to show the appellant suffered from for a period of over one year subsequent to the date of filing his claim for original invalid pension are, or can be, established as of service origin in the line of duty he is entitled to a pension therefor from 426 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. the date of filing his said claim to the date of the medical exam- ination Avhich tends to show that a pensionable degree of dis- ability had ceased to exist. 19. Increase. Practice — Increase — Test medical examination — Commencement. (Josiah Morgan, 13 P. D., 801.) Where a claim for increase has been rejected, but thereafter another test medical examination is ordered, such action is a reopening of the claim, and increase may be allowed from the date of such last examination establishing an increased disability. (See order No. 22, par. 8.) 20. Rule 14. Practice — Notice — Attorney — Act March 3, 1899. (Lizzie Hogg v. Thomas H. Hogg, 13 P. D., 206.) The evidence in this case fails to show service of a copy of claimant's appeal upon the pensioner or his attorney of record, as required by rule 14 of Practice. Service of a copy of the appeal upon pensioner's attorney in his invalid claim, there being no evidence tending to show that he was authorized to act as his attorney in this claim subse- quently instituted by claimant under the act of March 3, 1899, and no appearance having been entered by said attorney or pen- sioner in answer to said appeal, and there being no waiver of service, the appeal is dismissed under rule 14 of Practice, and the authorities herein cited. 21. Rule 16. Practice^ rule 16 — Act March 3, 1899 — Division of pension — Evi- dence. (Luc}^ M. Sherman v. James A. Sherman, 13 P. D., 203.) Rule 16 of Practice does not limit the right of appeal to thirty days except to the extent enumerated in said rule. Pensioner is 60 years of age, with no means of support, so far as appears from the evidence, but his daily labor and a pension of $16 per month. Claimant is about 55 years of age and the owner of a 10-acre farm, valued by her at $600, and which furnishes her a home. Held : That claimant is not shown to be in necessitous circum- stances within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. 22. Rule 19. Practice — Act March 3, 1899 — Evidence — Appeal. (Mollie A. Pick V. John H. Pick, 13 P. D., 299.) Claimant having failed for over thirty days, after receipt of notification from the Bureau, to furnish evidence required as to PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 427 her necessitous circumstances, and there being no satisfactory evidence in the case as to her financial status, her name was properly dropped from the rolls January 12, 1903. New or additional evidence upon the merits of a claim for divi- sion of pension under the act of March 3, 1899, filed after the ap- peal can not be considered on appeal. See Rule 19 of Practice, approved February 25, 1903. Practice — Division of pension — Act March 3, 1899 — Rule 19. (Lot- tie R. Sheldon v. Dwight J. Sheldon, 13 P. D., 542.) The assignments of error in this case are general, not specific, as required by Rule 19 of Practice, which requires that the appeal should briefly, but specifically, state the error of law or fact com- plained of and the grounds relied upon for reversing or modify- ing the Bureau action appealed from. This is a rule of order and convenience, but is not designed to prevent the correction of obvious errors or an affirmance of the action appealed from where no error is apparent from the record, and the Bureau action appears on inspection to have been aufiior- ized by the evidence in the case and in accordance with the law applicable thereto. 23. Brief Face — Combined Rates. Practice — Rate — Brief face — Gomhined rates. (William Hanley, 14 P. D., 162.) In 1887, at a time when the soldier was pensioned for " gun- shot wounds of left leg and right thigh," he filed a claim for increase on account of additional disabilities, namely, " disease of eyes and disease of spine." Pursuant to these allegations ad- ditional pension for "disease of back (lumbago)," at $2 per month, and for " disease of eyes," at $4, $8, and $17, respectively, per month was allowed. The combined rates, however, did not exceed $17 per month. Fractional rates can not be added together so as to make a grade rate, and the aggregate degree of disability shown to be due to all pensioned causes was not equivalent to the loss of a hand or foot for purposes of manual labor; consequently the third-grade rate was not allowed. Although the term " disease of eyes " is not so indefinite as are such terms as " disease of spine," " disease of head," " dis- ease of back," etc., the visual organs and their appendages are, nevertheless, subject to so large a number and such an infinite variety of diseases, accidents, and other abnormal conditions that it is desirable that all approvals for pension — both legal and medical, especially the latter — hereafter spread on the brief face in each and every case wherein such questions are involved shall 428 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. indicate as clearly as possible the nature of the disease, lesion, or condition accepted as of service origin; but inasmuch as this suggestion is in the nature of a new departure from prevailing methods, the propriety of complying therewith is, at this time, merely suggested for the careful consideration of the Bureau, the action of which in other respects in this case, especially in re- gard to the adequacy of the existing rate, is approved. 24. Interlocutory Order. Practice — Appeal — Interlocvtory order. (George P. Kobertson, 14 P. D., 364.) An appeal will not lie from an interlocutory order or ruling. (Cases of John W. Morris, 2 P. D., 73, and Frank Bishop, jr., 8 P. D., 459.) 25. Reconsideration — Rule 13. Practice — Reconsideration — Rvle 13 (Henry C. Mechling, 14 P. D., 68.) The action of the Bureau in the case having been affirmed on appeal and a motion for reconsideration of said decision over- ruled, this second motion to reconsider is overruled under Rule 13, Rules of Practice, as the same does not disclose that any mate- rial feature of the case had not been fully considered nor that there was error of fact or in the application of the law. 26. Special Examination. Practice — Attorneys — Special examinations. (Ascha Hughes, mother, 10 P. D., 390.) The relations between attorney and client, in a pension claim, are not such as to give the attorney all of the same rights that he would have under the common law. The mission of and the procedure under a special examination is such as to preclude the absolute necessity of the presence of an attorney to protect either his own or his claimant's rights. The prevailing practice of allowing an attorney to be present and to take part in a special examination, if so requested by claimant, is all that is necessary under the circumstances, for the Govern- ment is not in any wise a defendant in such proceedings. Practice — Special examination — Division of pension. (Hyatt v. Hyatt, 14 P. D., 8.) Where, after a special examination directed by this Depart- ment, after appeal, a claim for division of pension under the act of March 3, 1899, has been decided by the Department, the deci- sion will be deemed final to the extent that, in the absence of fraud or mistake, it will not be reopened or modified without the express direction of the Secretary of the Interior. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 429 The Bureau action, in declining to recommend a reopening of this case, and holding that there was no reason to believe that the special examination was partial or prejudicial to the interest of claimant, and that further action by the Bureau was not deemed necessary or desirable, is affirmed. 27. Jurisdiction — Res Judicata. Reduction — Aid and attendance — Practice — Fraud — Jurisdiction — Res judicata — Medical referee — Record. (William Blaisdell, deceased, 13 P. D., 465.) 1. There is no statute inhibiting one administration from re- viewing the action of a past administration, and the Department may not make any such inhibition. 2. The Department may, however, in the interests of good administration and on grounds of public policy, properly and lawfully refuse such review except on error or gross injustice appearing on the face of the record or clearly demonstrated in a motion for reconsideration. 3. Failure by the Department to entertain as a motion for reconsideration a guardian's letter setting forth facts sufficient under the rules to constitute a valid motion for reconsideration of a decision adverse to such guardian's ward is such error as will be corrected, after the ward's death, on motion regularly made by one entitled to claim the latter's accrued pension. 4. In exercising such power of review one administration may not disturb the action of a past administration so as to aifect pen- sion already paid thereunder, unless fraud or mistake of fact be shown, but an erroneous judgment on the evidence may be cor- rected by any succeeding administration so far as regards future pension. 5. The Commissioner of Pensions has, with the consent and under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, full power at any time to increase or to reduce a pension according to right and justice, subject only to certain provisions as to notice and hearing, and it is his duty to reduce or to withdraw pension when it is shown to be contrary to a clear and unambiguous law as to which no misconstruction is possible. (). The opinion of the medical referee, while generally accepted on purely medical questions, is not conclusive, but is advisory only, and on questions of mental capacity and of facts lying within the range of common observation and experience his opinion and medical testimony generally is not entitled to any greater weight because of the fact of his or the witness being a physician, but such questions should be decided upon all the evi- dence in the case. 430 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 7. The question of title to the first-grade rate is one of mixed law and fact, to be decided from all the laws in pari materia on the one hand and from all the evidence on the other. 8. Insanity does not of itself necessarily entitle to either the first grade or the intermediate rate, but it must be shown that the disability or disabilities established as originating in line of duty in service totally incapacitate the soldier for manual labor, and also necessitate the regular or the frequent and periodical per- sonal aid and attendance of another. 9. The public record as to the cause of death is not conclusive, but the question of death cause is one of fact to be decided upon all the evidence, and the medical referee's conclusion as to such cause is generally followed by the Department when based upon all the evidence and upon facts appearing therein reasonably and fairly warranting it. 10. The evidence herein shows that the allowance of pension at the first-grade rate in January, 1891, was erroneous and illegal, as it included disabilities which had not been established as of service origin, and as neither total incapacity for manual labor nor regular personal aid and attendance of another person, with- in the meaning of the law as construed by the Department, existed by reason of the only cause, sciatic rheumatism, shown to have originated in line of duty in service, and that the rate was properly reduced to $10 per month from July 4, 1893, neither such incapacity for labor nor such need of aid and attendance having existed since that date from said cause. 11. The soldier's mental disease or infirmity is shown to have had no probable or possible pathological connection with said disease on account of which he was properly pensionable, sciatic rheumatism, nor any connection otherwise with his military service, but is shown to have been probably due to other and non- service causes. 12. A bare preponderance of testimony is not sufficient to es- tablish . fraud, but there must be such clear and ample prepon- derance as to satisfy the mind and conscience of the fact of fraud. 13. It is error to omit, on special examination of a claim, to cross-examine procurable witnesses whose affidavits prima facie establish such claim. 28. Legal Points to be Adjudicated. Practice — War with Spain — Evidence — Proof. (Luther J. Smith, 13 P. D., 344.) In all cases under the general law arising since the commence- ment of the war with Spain, the legal points involved should be first passed upon. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 431 OPINION. (Certificate 319701, Julianna Dickey, widow of James Dickey, late pilot on ram Lioness, Mississippi ram fleet.) Law Division, April 23^ 1901^, Respectfully referred to chief of Board of Review for his consideration and such action as he may deem proper. It appears that in this case the only service rendered by James Dickey was as a civilian pilot on the ram Lioness of EUet's ram fleet, from April 29 to September 3, 1862. He was pensioned under the old law for malarial poisoning, and his widow's appli- cation under said law was rejected on the ground that death cause, carcinoma, was not due to any disability established to be of army origin. She was pensioned under the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890, on June 7, 1892, prior to the date of the deci- sion of the Department in re Andrew J. Shannon (7 P. D., 64) and in re David Oliver (7 P. D., 597). It appears that it was the practice of the Bureau to grant pensions under the act of June 27, 1890, based upon service in the ram fleet up to or about November 24, 1893; and this practice was apparently sustained in principle by the decision in the Louis Schaffer case (6 P. D., 137). No cause for further action on the part of this division ap- pears to exist. S. A. Cuddy, Chief of Law Division. (Certificate No. 304318, Leander Cjlirns, U. S. Navy. No. 319701, widow of James Dickey, pilot on U. S. ram Monarch and Lioness, U. S. Navy.) Office of First Deputy Commissioner, June 25, 190i. Mr. Dalton, Chief, Board of Review: I see it is the purpose to drop the names of these claimants from the rolls. The claims seem to have been allowed in accord- ance with the law as construed by the Commissioner of Pen- sions at the dates of allowance, and I see no reason why at this time the present Commissioner should attempt to undo what was done by a former Commissioner. The practice of revision Avas stopped long ago, and pensions should remain undisturbed in cases in which nothing new has developed since the date of allowance. J. L. Davenport, First Deputy Commissioner. 432 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. PREDISPOSING CAUSE. See Death Cause: No. 6 (10 P. D., 90; 14 P. D., 300). PREEMPTION. See Services No. 24 (15 P. D., 198). PRESUMPTIONS. See Accrued Pension: No. 7 (12 P. D., 208) ; No. 8 (13 P. D., 181). See Dependent Parents : No, 5 (9 P. D., 287). See Disloyalty: No. 5 (11 P. D., 136). See Evidence: Nos. 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 (12 P. D., 264; 11 P. D., 102 9 P. D., 418, 500 ; 10 P. D., 6, 51 ; 11 P. D., 197, 501 ; 12 P. D., Ill 13 P. D., 54 ; 15 P. D., 41, 345, 347, 500 ; 13 P. D., 437 ; 10 P. D., 448 12 P. D., 155; 11 P. D., 344 ; 12 P. D., 155). See Fee: No. 15 (11 P. D., 215). See Line of Duty: No. 11 (11 P. D., 84, 516). See Marriage: No. 2 (b) (15 P. D., 223) ; No. 2 (d) (15 P. D., 103) ; No. 2 (e) (15 P. D., 253) ; No. 2 (k) (15 P. D., 186) ; No. 2 (o) (13 P. D., 64) ; No. 2 (p) (11 P. D., 339) ; No. 2 (r) (14 P. D., 530) ; No. 2 (t) (15 P. D., 240) ; No. 2 (u) (15 P. D., 236) ; No. 2 (w) (13 P. D., 59) ; No. 2 (z) (15 P. D., 258) ; No. 2 (bb) (11 P. D., 212; 12 P. D., 306, 340; 15 P. D., 413) ; No. 2 (ff) (11 P. D., 427) ; No. 2 (gg) (15 P. D., 495) ; No. 2 (11) (15 P. D., .399) ; No. 3 (a) (9 P. D., 31 ; 11 P. D., 320) ; No. 3 (b) (12 P. D., 312) ; No. 3 (c) (11 P. D., 158; 12 P. D., 182) ; No. 4 (11 P. D., 204) ; No. 12 (9 P. D., 243 ; 10 P. D., 162 ; 11 P. D., 43, 234 ; 12 P. D., 32, 278, 292, 348 ; 14 P. D., 442) ; No. 13 (11 P. D., 66, 131; 14 P. D., 497) ; No. 15 (14 P. D., 156). See Vicious Habits : Nos. 1, 2 (9 P. D., 252 ; 15 P. D., 427). See Service: No. 1 (9 P. D., 18). PRESUMPTION OF CAPACITY. See Marriage: No. 2 (b) (15 P. D., 223). PRESUMPTION AS TO MATERIAL SERVICE. See Fee: No. 15 (11 P. D., 215). PRESUMPTION OF VICIOUS HABITS. See Evidence: No. 16 (11 P. D., 344). PRESUMPTION OF ILLICIT COHABITATION. See Marriage: No. 2 (t) (15 P. D., 240). PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. See Accrued Pension: No. 7 (12 P. D., 208) ; No. 8 (13 P. D., 181). See Dependent Parents: No. 5 (9 P. D., 287). See Evidence: No. 10 (9 P. D., 201, 418, 500; 10 P. D., 6, 51, 289; 11 P. D., 197, 501 ; 12 P. D., Ill ; 13 P. D., 54; 15 P. D., 41, 347, 500). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 433 See Marriage: No. 2 (d), 2 (e), 2 (o), 2 (z), 2 (bb) (15 P. D., 103; 15 P. D., 253 ; 13 P. D., 64 ; 15 P. D., 258 ; 11 P. D., 212 ; 12 P. D., 306, 340) ; No. 3 (b) (12 P. D., 312) ; No. 12 (9 P. D., 243 ; 10 P. D.! 162; 11 P. D., 43, 234; 12 P. D., 32, 278, 292, 348; 14 P. D., 442) ; No. 2 (gg) (15 P. D., 495). PRESUMPTION OF DIVORCE. See Divorce: No. 2 (10 P. D. 311, 348; 13 P. D., 68 ; 15 P. D., 174). See Marriage: No. 13 (11 P. D., 66, 131; 14 P. D., 497) ; No. 2 (1) (15 P. D., 229) ; No. 2 (11) (15 P. D., 399). PRIOR MARRIAGE. See Marriage: No. 4 (12 P. D., 505). PROBATE COURT. See Marriage: No. 4 (13 P. D., 272). PRIMA FACIE CASE. See Attorneys: No. 7 (11 P. D., 392). See Fee: No. 17 (11 P. D., 392). PRESUMPTION OF PRIOR SERVICE. See Evidence: No. 13 (11 P. D., 437). PRIOR SERVICE. See Evidence: No. 13 (11 P. D., 437). See Service: No. 25 (13 P. D., 288). PRESUMPTION AS TO PRIOR SOUNDNESS. See Evidence: No. 14 (10 P. D., 448; 12 P. D., 155; 15 P. D., 345). PRIOR SOUNDNESS. References. See Evidence: No. 14 (10 P. D., 448; 12 P. D., 155; 15 P. D., 345). See Origin: No. 2 (12 P. D., 298). Index. 1. When presumed. 2. Predisposition to disease not a bar to pension. 1. When Presumed. Prior soundness — Heart disease — Evidence. (George H. Earle, 15 p. D., 1.) The rejection of appellant's claim for pension on account of disease of heart on the ground that such disease is shown, by the records of the Navy Department, to have originated prior to his enlistment as a coal passer in the NaA^y, is untenable — not only by reason of the fact that the record in that respect was 13070—06 28 434 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. based on a mere theoretical opinion to that effect and not founded upon an established fact, but also because the natural presumption of the existence of physical soundness at enlistment, as a prerequisite to his acceptance as fit to perform the duties for which he enlisted, is sustained by the same records, which show that " no physical defect " was " noted at enlistment." To hold otherwise would be permitting a theory to controvert a fact. Moreover, the presumption of prior soundness is further sustained by the fact that only four months before his enlist- ment in the Navy the claimant was discharged from the military service of the United States as physically sound, and nothing to the contrary was shown until seventeen months subsequent to such enlistment. Neither would the rejection of said claim on the ground that the disease of heart in question had ceased to exist be proper in the light of the facts presented in the case in regard thereto. 2. Predisposition to Disease not a Bar to Pension. (No. 1221028, Frank A. Atkins (insane), Company F, Eiglitli Oliio Volunteer Infantry, war with Spain ; Jos. A. Atkins, guardian, completing. Docket No. 79490, appeal. Reversed in part, affirmed in part.) UNPUBLISHED GENERAL LAW CLAIM. Soldier had varicose veins at enlistment; his present disability therefrom originated not in service, but is merely a development of a condition existing prior to enlistment. At the most, the con- dition was merely aggravated during his service; but mere ag- gravation of a preexisting cause of disability is not pensionable. Soldier had malaria four years before enlistment, from which he recovered. He again contracted the disease in service. If the first attack is in any way a factor, it served merely to create a predisposition to contract the disease. Predisposition to dis- ease is not a bar to pension. His present disability, then, must be attributed to the service. PROVOST MARSHALS. See Line of Duty : No. 5 (10 P. D., 345). PRO RATA FEE. See Fee: No. 16 (11 P. D., 496). PROOF. See Division of Pension: No. 6 (12 P. D., 370) ; No. 12 (13 P. D. 120). See Evidence: No. 11 (11 P. D., 524). See Legitimacy: No. 5 (12 P. D., lOU). See Marriage: No. 6 (13 P. D., 96) ; No. 13 (11 P. D., 131). See Minors : No. 5 (12 P. D., 512). I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 485 PROOF OF DEATH. See Marriage: No. 6 (13 P. D., 96). PUTATIVE MARRIAGE. See Marriage: No. 2 (p) (13 P. D., 98; 15 P. D., 530). RANK. References. See Dependent Parents: No. 7 (10 P. D., 299). See Fee : No. 25 (10 P. D., 428). See Special Act: No. 1 (11 P. D., 424). Index. 1. Rating— Act June 27, 1890. 2. Rate— Act June 27, 1890— Construction. 1. Rating — Act June 27, 1890. Rating— Act June 27, 1890. (Mary Ann Hurst, mother, 9 P. D., 406.) Rank in the service is not to be considered in any application under the act of June 27, 1890. 2. Rate — Act June 27, 1890 — Construction. Rank — Rate — Act Jnne 27, 1890 — Construction. (Mary H. Elli- ott, mother, 11 P. D., 34.) Claimant's son having held the rank of major at the time he was killed in battle, November 27, 1868, she was entitled to a pension of $25 per month under her dependent mother's applica- tion filed January 16, 1891, and there was and is no authority of law for rating her pension at $12 per month under section 4707, Revised Statutes, as amended by the first section of the act of June 27, 1890. RATE AND RATING. References. See Aid and Attendance: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (9 P. D., 307, 349, 423, 481; 10 P. D., 172; 12 P. D., 70, 77, 215, 299; 11 P. D., 473, 503). See Amputation : No. 1 (9 P. D., 70; 11 P. D., 1 ; 14 P. D., 264). See Certificate of Medical Examination : No. 1 (9 P. D., 4). See Commencement: No. 1 (9 P. D., 102; 13 P. D., 352; No. G (11 P. D., 18). See Construction of Statutes: No 2 (10 P. D., 99). See Dependent Parents: No. 7 (10 P. D., 299). See Disability: Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 (9 P. D., 68, 156; 10 P. D., 276; 11 P. D., 505; 12 P. D., 319; 14 P. D., 182, 508). See Fee: No. 25 (10 P. D., 428). See Increase: Nos. 3, 5 (12 P. D., 87, 92; 13 P. D.. 290, 455). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 13, 18, 20 (13 P. D., 192; 14 P. D., 89; 11 P. D., .317). See Payment of Pension : No. 2 (10 P. D., 281). 436 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Rate and rating — Continued. References — Continued. See Practice: Xos. 11, 23 (10 P. D., 12; 14 P. D., 162). See Rank : Nos. 1, 2 (9 P. D., 406; 11 P. D., 34). See Reduction: No. 2 (9 P. D., 344; 12 P. D., 244). See Reimbursement: No. 2 (13 P. D., 201). See Rebating: No. 5 (9 P. D., 66; 11 P. D., 299). See Restoration: No. 3 (9 P. D., 430). Index. 1. Act March 19, 1886. 2. Act June 27, 1890. 3. Adequacy of rate. 4. Combination of rates. 5. Rating for deafness. 0. Compounding rates. 7. First grade. 8. Practice. 9. Act of August 4, 1886. 10. Specific disability— Act March 2, 1903. 11. Grade rates-Act March 3, 1883. 12. Notice— Act December 21, 1893. 1. Act March 19, 1886. Rate — A(it March 19^ 1886. (Laura A. Young, widow, 9 P. D., 403.) 1. As claimant was married to soldier after his discharge from the service, and after the passage of the act of March 19, 1886, which increased the pensions of widows and dependent relatives of deceased soldiers from $8 to $12 per month, her pension was properly allowed at the rate of $8 per month only, as said act contained a proviso limiting its application to widows who were married to soldiers prior to the passage of the act, or during the service of such soldier. 2. Appellant having filed her application under the misap- prehension that her claim under the general law had been re- 1 jected, and that she was pensioned under the act of June 27, 1890, instead, said appeal is dismissed. 2. Act June 27, 1890. Rates— Act June 27, 1890. (David Wilson, 9 P. t)., 404.) 1. The pension law, with the exception of the act of February 28, 1877, granting a pension for the loss of an arm and a leg, has never permitted the allowance of a pension made up of the sum of the rates allowable for disability from two or more causes considered separately. The rate must be based upon the com- bined effect of all the causes". 2. The rates of pension under the general law are much higher than those under the act of June 27, 1890, the highest rate under the latter act being $12 per month, which is allowable for about PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 437 the same degree of disability for which the general pension law provides the rate of $30 per month. Rate — Act June 27^.1890 — Disability — Reduction. (Joseph A. Dudgeon, 9 P. D., 413.) Disabilities which are pensionable under the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, must cause incapacity for performance of manual labor in such degree as to produce inability to earn a support, and the rate must, within the limits fixed, be propor- tioned to the degree of inability to earn a support. The right to increase and the right to reduce rest upon the same basis; the only question to be considered is whether the increase or reduction was warranted by the law and the facts. Rate— Act June 27, 1890. (James Caldwell, 9 P. D. 486.) The maximum rate of pension under the act of June 27, 1890, corresponds with total disability and the minimum and inter- vening rates correspond, proportionately, with all partial degrees of inability to earn a support by manual labor. Rate— Act June 27, 1890— Disability. (Evlin Earl, 10 P. D., 176.) The evidence on file at the time the pension was reduced show- ing that the pensioner could earn a partial support by manual labor, the reduction from $12 to $8 per month is held not to have been erroneous. Rating — Act June 27, 1890 — Disabilities. (Reuben F. Scott, 10 P. D., 256.) It was not intended by the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, to grant pension thereunder for a degree of disability that would not materially impair a claimant's ability to earn a sup- port by manual labor. Rating — Act June 27, 1890 — Disability. (Charles Norbury alias William Walker, 10 P. D., 261.) 1. Pensions under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, can not be rated as under sections 4692 and 4693, Revised Statutes, or the act of August 27, 1888. 2. To be ratable under the second section of the act of June 27, 1890, a disability must not only be of a permanent character, not the result of claimant's vicious habits, but must incapacitate him for the performance of manual labor, and that in a degree ren- dering him unable to earn a support. 3. Total deafness of one ear only is not a pensionable condition under said act. Rates and rating, act June 27, 1890 — Practice. (Isaac B. Childers, 10 P. D., 397.) Appellant filed his first claim for pension under the act of June 27, 1890, on September 24, 1891. Said claim was rejected 488 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. October 30, 1894, on the ground of no disability shown under the act. Certificate of medical examination made under the claim ■?howed existence of an inguinal hernia, incomplete. A second claim was filed June 23, 1897, under said act, together w^ith a claim under the provisions of the act of March G, 1896. Pension was alloAA^ed for an inguinal hernia from date of filing last decla- ration, and former rejection was adhered to by the Bureau on the ground that a schedule of rates prepared for general-law j^en- sioners fixed a rate of only $4 per month for a like condition during a period prior to December 4, 1891. Held: That in fixing rates of pension in claims under the act of June 27, 1890, only the degree of inabilit}^ for earning a sup- port by manual labor should be considered, other laws and schedules not being allowed to influence the action. Rates and rating^ act June 27^ 1890 — Practice. (Lucius S. Hollis, 10 P. D., 414.) Any practice which allows a rating under the act of June 27, 1890, without making the degree of inability to earn a support by manual labor the basis of judgment, is unwarranted by law. (Isaac B. Childers, 358 L. B., 396.) A pensionable condition can not be found because designated by a name of a disease or disability, unless such name or designa- tion carries with it the conclusive fact that it embraces conditions which are of necessity of such a character as to pensionably dis- able one. Neither the term " complete inguinal hernia " nor " incomplete inguinal hernia," joer se, conveys any specific information by reason of which a rating could be allowed. 3. Adequacy of Rate. Rate—Disahility. (John W. Fellows, 9 P. D., 370.) Seventeen dollars per month is deemed an adequate pension for disability due to rheumatism and resulting disease of heart, evi- denced by atrophy of muscles of left shoulder, with motion much impaired and marked crepitation in both shoulder joints and both knee joints, resulting in hypertrophy of heart, heart's beat being 120 per minute. Practice — Reduction rate — Act June 27^ 1890. (Mary M. De Gough, widow, 11 P. D., 336.) The rate of $8 per month, to which this soldier was reduced, appears to be fairly commensurate to the degree of incapacity for earning a support shown to have existed. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 439 4. Combination of Rates. Rating — Practice — Combining ratings. (Mark Davis, 10 P. D., 185.) Pensioner was receiving a rating of seventeen-eighteenths for neuralgia and slight deafness of both ears, result of catarrh, said rating being made up of two-eighteenths for the first- named disability and fifteen-thirtieths (the schedule rate at time of allowance) for the deafness in that degree. After- wards, when rating of four-eighteenths was allowed for addi- tional disability from chronic diarrhea and piles, the total rating was continued at seventeen-eighteenths, because the ratings could not be combined to make twenty-one-eighteenths, a rate un- known to the law. Then again, the schedule rate for slight deaf- ness of both ears has been reduced to six- thirtieths. This was recommended in the last certificate of examination, together with six-eighteenths for piles and disease of rectum, result of diarrhea, and six-eighteenths for pains in stomach, chest, and head, result of neuralgia. Thus, the. combined rates making eighteen-eighteenths, kept the total pension at the former rate of seventeen-eighteenths per month. The ratings named could not be combined to make the third- grade rate, or $24 per month, even if they would amount to so much, and as they do not all together, and considered as a whole, produce a degree of incapacity to perform manual labor equiv- alent to the loss of a hand or foot, pensioner is not entitled to said third-grade rate. Rate — Act of March ^, 1895 — Combined rates — Practice. (George E. Searles, 15 P. D., 550.) The rate fixed by the act of March 2, 1895, is a statutory allow- ance and not a disability rating. Any rate allowed for addi- tional disabilities can not be added to the statutory rate, the in- tent of the statute being to fix the minimum rate which can be given for any single disability or for several combined dis- abilities. 5. Rating for Deafness. Rate of pension — Deafness — Practice. (Hilkiah P. Nichols, de- ceased, 9 P. D., 326.) The rating of pension on account of total deafness of one ear was, in accordance with established practice, during the period covered in this case (from 1865 to 1870) $1 per month. Deafness — Rate — Increase — Act of January 15^ 1903. (Michael W. Strieker, 15 P. D., 207.) The claimant is not totally deaf, and the present rate, $27 per month, is the highest rate allowable for partial deafness. 440 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Within the meaning of the hiw total deafness consists in the inability to hear the loudest conversation. The rates for total deafness can be allowed only when the sense of hearing is wholly destroyed or when it is lacking in such a degree that the loudest conversation can not be distinguished in either ear. The other affections for which the claimant is pensioned are neither alleged nor shown to be material factors in the claim for increase above the present rating. 6. Compounding Rates. Rating — Disability — Compoundhig rates. (George A. South, 10 P. D., 21.) Unless specifically 2:)rovided for, there is no provision of law by which disabilities can be considered separately and com- pounded so as to allow for all the pension which each, consid- ered separately, would aggregate. It is the combined effect of all that must be considered ; and in this case the combined effect of all the disabling causes accepted as due to the service not ren- dering claimant's incapacity to perform manual labor equivalent to the loss of a hand or a foot, he is not entitled to a higher rate of pension than he now enjoys ($17 per month). Rate — Compounding rates — Grade rates. (Niram W. Mallory, 11 P. D., 165.) The claimant was pensioned at $17^ per month for disease of heart. Subsequently a reissue was made to include deafness, but no increase of rate was allowed. The next higher rate to that which the claimant was receiving is third grade, $24 per month. There is no authority of law under which specific rates and general rates can be compounded to make a grade rating. 7. First Grade. Rate — First grade — Commencement — Avt March 4, 1890. (James Bennett, 10 P. D., 443.) Unless a pensioner's name was borne upon the rolls at first- grade rate proper — $50 per month — prior to the passage of the act of March 4, 1890, which act increased the said rate to $72 per month, or the certificate of a medical examination made prior to the passage of the said act showed the existence of such a degree of disability as to Avarrant the allowance of the said first-grade rate, the terms of the act itself prohibit the alloAvance of the rate prescribed therein from any period prior to the date of the certificate of an examining surgeon or board of examining surgeons showing such degree of disability. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 441 8. Practice. Rates — Practice. (Nixon Rees, 9 P. D., 435.) Where the basis of a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, is the loss of sight of one eye, which disabling cause is shown to have existed at the date of filing the declaration, and the claim was rejected under the prevailing practice on the ground that such condition did not constitute a ratable disability under said act, the subsequent adoption of the rule which allows a rate for such disability operates to vacate the former adverse action and to allow the claim. Rate — Increase — Deafness — Practice. (George Geary, 12 P. D., 294.) 1. Ratings for minor disabilities can not be added together in order to make a grade rating. 2. Claimant being pensioned at $22 per month for severe deaf- ness of both ears, the degree of deafness existing at the last medical examination is not entitled to have said rate increased until a claim for increase shall have been filed and a medical examination had showing an increased degree of disability to exist. Rate^ act June 27.^ 1890 — Increase — Practice — Election. (Oscar Caldwell, 12 P. D., 331.) 1. The claimant is receiving $10 per month under the general law, and he was allowed the same amount under the act of June 27, 1890. He has taken no action in relation to the notification as to his right to elect under which law he prefers to receive pension, but the attorney has appealed from the action and allowance under said act. It is held that the claimant was shown by the medical examination to be entitled to the maximum rating, and it is directed that this rating be allowed. , 2. Whenever it is shown that a claimant's disability has been materially increased after his official exajnination, yet before the adjudication of his claim, another medical examination shall be ordered before the claim is rejected or adversely adjudi- cated, unless such action is based upon legal grounds, and it is immaterial whether the claim is for original pension or for increase of pension under either the act of June 27, 1890, or the general law, provided, of course, the disability under the general law is shown to be due to the pensioned cause or causes, or to a cause or causes which have been legally accepted. Rate — Aid and attendance — Eindence. (William B. Monson, 15 P. D., 262.) The claimant being pensioned at $30 per month for rheuma- tism and resulting disease of heart and in a helpless condition 442 iPEi^rsioN and bounty-land claims. so as to require regular and constant aid and attendance, and it being impossible to determine to what extent his helplessness is due to the above-named diseases and to what extent to old age (79 3^ears), the recommendation of the examining surgeon that he be given $50 per month is concurred in. 9. Act of August 4, 1886. Rate — Act of August 4, 1886 — Total disability in arm — Evidence. (Samuel D. Frank, 13 P. D., 362.) The evidence shows that the gunshot wound of soldier's arm renders it totally disabled for all practical use and convenience, and entitles him to the rate of $36 under the act of August 4, 1886. 10. Specific Disability— Act March 2, 1903. Rates — Specific disability — Act 3/ arch 2, 1903 — Total disability in both feet. (Wilson S. Barney, 14 P. D., 524.) Those persons who are totally disabled in both feet are not included in any class of beneficiaries mentioned in the act of March 2, 1903, and are not entitled thereunder to a pension of $100 per month. 11. Grade Rates— Act March 3, 1883. Rating — Grade rates ^ act March 3, 1883 — Instructions. (George W. Baker, 9 P. D., 125.) 1. The act of March 3, 1883, increased the amount of pension for third-grade rating from $18 to $24 per month, and since that date there has been no $18 rate, and any allow^ance of $18 as a third -grade rating or otherwise is erroneous. 2. The basis of rating above $17 per month (aside from total of rank) is that the disability shall produce inability to perform manual labor equivalent to the loss of a hand or a foot. 12. Notice, Act December 21, 1893. Notice, act December 21, 1893— Rates. (Alva H. Hall, 9 P. D., 165.) 1. Where the question involved on appeal is whether claim- ant had due notice of the proposed action, as required by section 3 of the act of June 21, 1879, or the act of December 21, 1893, the report from the Commissioner of Pensions in response to the appeal should fully and clearly state whether notice was served on the claimant, and if so, the form of the notice or its substance, and the date and manner of service should be stated. 2. The notice specified in the act of June 21, 1879, and the thirty days' notice specified in the act of December 21, 1893, are essential prerequisites without which the reduction or suspen- sion of a pension is not authorized. Due statutory notice is nee- PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 44S essary to confer jurisdiction to reduce or suspend pensions once issued. 3. Where the record shows that the statutory notice was duly issued and mailed to claimant's address and is not returned to your Bureau, the presumption is that the notice was duly received by claimant, and this presumption is not outweighed by the affidavit of claimant first made in his appeal, but in such a case the Department will, on its own motion, examine into the merits of the claim to ascertain if any injustice has been done claimant in the action complained of. 4. The evidence in this case shows that claimant was im- properly pensioned at the rate of $12 per month under the act of June 27, 1890, and that his disability did not entitle him to a rate in excess of the minimum rate under said act. 5. Combination of ratings to establish a pensionable degree of disability is not authorized under the. act of June 27, 1890. READJTJDICATION. See Practice: No. 5 (9 P. D., 04). KECOGNITION. See Attorneys: Nos. 18, 19, 20 (10 P. D., 236, 403; 11 P. D., 422; 14 P. D., 269; 15 P. D.. 317, 359). See Fee: No. 23 (14 P. D., 276). RECONSIDERATION. See Fee: No. 2 (9 P. D., 39). See Practice: No. 25 (14 P. D., 68). See Res .Judicata : No. 1 (9 P. D., 218). RECORD OF WAR DEPARTMENT. See Evidence: No. 10 (15 P. D., 500). See Line of Duty: (2 unpublished decisions.) RECORD. See Attorneys : No. 6 (9 P. D., 471 ; 15 P. D., 163). See Desertion : No. 3 (10 P. D., 55) ; No. 4 (g) (15 P. D., 8). See Disloyalty: No. 5 (11 P. D., 327). See Divorce: Nos. 1, 3, 5, 10 (11 P. D., 226; 14 P. D., 5.35; 15 P. D., 278, .389). See Evidence : Nos. 7, 8, 10, 15 (10 P. D., 319 ; 12 P. D., 264 ; 13 P. D., 84, 450 ; 10 P. D., 80, 196 ; 11 P. D., 483 ; 15 P. D., i^OO). See Jurisdiction : Nos. 3, 4 (9 P. D., 273; 13 P. D., 465). See Marriage: No. 4 (12 P. D., 434). See Practice: No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). See Service: Nos. 2, 3, 20, 22, 25, 28 (9 P. D., 87; 15 P. D., 44, 50, 51 ; 14 P. D., 249 ; 13 P. D., 230, 237, 288 ; 14 P. D., 388). 444 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. RECRUIT. See Service: Nos. 18, 20 (11 P. D., 390; 13 P. D., 41). REJECTED RECRUIT. ^ See Service: No. 18 (11 P. D., 390). REDUCTION. References. See Commencement: No. 1 (9 P. D., 102). See Jurisdiction: No. 4 (13 P. D., 465). See Notice: No. 2 (12 P. D., 21). See Practice: No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). See Rate and Rating: Nos. 2, 3 (9 P. D., 413; 11 P. D., 336). Index. 1. Practice. 2. Rate. 1. Practice. Reduction — Notice — Practice. (John S. Hubley, 9 P. D., 48.) An unsworn statement by a claimant that he never received notice to appear before a board of surgeons in a reduction case is not sufficient to warrant a reversal of the action of the Commis- sioner of Pensions reducing the rate of his pension; but good practice demands that a record of such notices be kept in the future, and when a pensioner claims that he was not notified he should be advised at once to file a sworn statement of the fact, and corroborative proof, when the issue thus raised will be passed upon. Reduction— Notice. (William Hulse, 9 P. D., 121.) Pensioner's rating having been reduced from $12 to $8 per month under the act of June 27, 1890, after due notice in accord- ance with the provisions of the act of December 21, 1893, he appealed, and such action was set aside for the purpose of ac- cording him another medical examination, it having been three years since his last examination. Such examination having been made, and it appearing therefrom that such reduction was justly and properly made, pensioner is not entitled to a new notice to reduce nor additional payment at a higher rate for the period from date of original reduction and the date of the action had on the last medical examination. 2. Rate. Reduction — Rerating. (Gottlieb Spitzer, alias Gottfried Brunner, 9 P. D., 83.) Where the allowance of a certain rate of pension was directed by a decision of the Department, and subsequently the Commis- sioner of Pensions ordered a medical examination of the pen- r I PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 445 sioner by a specialist and upon the report of such examination proceeded to reduce the rate of pension, it is Held: That such action was not ultra vires, but was within the scope of the authority given him by the proviso to section 3, act of June 21, 1879. The rate allowed under departmental decision of June 13, 1894, not being manifestly erroneous, but the question as to its correct- ness being, one of judgment merely, it will not be disturbed. (Citing decision of Secretary Teller in case of James S. Coleman, Digest of 1885, p. 422.) Reduction— Rate— Act June '^7, 1890. (Thomas Mallon, 9 P. D., 344.) Soldier was pensioned at $12 per month in August, 1890, which rating was reduced to $6 per month in March, 1895. The con- tention is that his original rating was fixed in harmony with reg- ulations which obtained at that time, and can not legally be affected by regulations formulated subsequent thereto. Held: It is the statute, not the regulations, which determines his rights. Reduction — Rate — Insanity — Aid and attendance, (Lovell Bul- lock, 12 P. D., 244.) The guardian of the soldier, who was formerly pensioned at the rate of $72 per month for insanity, has appealed from the reduc- tion of the rate in the case to $50 per month for such cause of dis- ability. The evidence adduced in the case and the findings of a board of surgeons at a recent test medical examination to which the pensioner was subjected, show conclusively that he neither has nor requires the regular personal aid and attendance of another person. Held: (1) That inasmuch as there is no provision of law, as is the case in total blindness and in other specific permanent causes of disability, which prescribes a fixed rate for insanity per se, no matter what the degree thereof may be, neither the $50 rate nor the $72 rate should be allowed for such cause of disability unless the degree of disability due thereto is shown to be such as to wholly disqualify the claimant or pensioner for manual labor, and also necessitate either the frequent and periodical or the reg- ular personal aid and attendance of another person. (George Welch, 3 P. D., 121; James Caton, 6 P. D., 159; Eppenetus Mc- intosh, 10 P. D., 172.) 2. Th'at the question as to whether or not a pensioner requires the personal aid and attendance of another person is not wholly a medical one. (Edmund O. Beers, 7 P. D., 113; John J. Hill, 7 P. D., 142.) 446 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. REFUNDMENT. See Fee: Nos. 7, 15 (9 P. D., 377; 12 P. D., 109, 441; 11 P. D., 215). REFORMATION. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 9 (15 P. D., 96). REISSUE. See Attorneys: No. 11 (12 P. D., 221). See Helpless Minor: No. 3 (15 P. D., 478). REIMBURSEMENT. References. See Accrued Pension : No. 1 (9 P. D., 276; No. 6 (12 P. D., 405). See Decree of Nullity : No. 7 (15 P. D., 286). See Division of Pension: No. 15 (14 P. D., 367). See Evidence: No. 14 (10 P. D., 448). See Fraud and Mistake: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (9 P. D., 149, 455; 11 P. D., 200, 308; 12 P. D., 116; 14 P. D., 57). See Navy Pension : No. 2 (14 P. D., 224). Index. 1. Where two pensions were drawn for same time. 2. Wliere claimant knew allegations were fraudulent. 3. Act of March 2, 1895. 4. Fraud and mistake. 1. Where Two Pensions Were Drawn for Same Time. Reimbursement — Fraud and mistake — Section Jf715^ Revised Stat- utes. (Samuel B. Weeks, 10 P. D., 84.) Pensioner having drawn two pensions for the same period of time, in contravention of the provisions of said section, and the Bureau having taken steps to secure reimbursement of the amount illegally paid by withholding all pension until the over- payments are recovered, it is held that such action was proper, that it is a duty imposed by the law, and that the Department has no power to afford the pensioner relief by revoking the action or annulling the requirement of the statute. 2. Where Claimant Knew Allegations Were Fraudulent. Reimbursement — Rate — Act of March 19, 1886 — Fraud and mis- take — Divorce and remarriage. (Mary Brooks, widow, 13 P. D., 201.) Mary Brooks married the soldier on August 10, 18()5; was divorced from him in 1887; remarried him on September 22, 1889; and he died on December 23, 1889. On June 13, 1890, she was allowed a pension under the general law as the soldier's widow, upon proof of her first marriage to him in 1865, at the rate of $12 per month from the date of the soldier's death, the fact of her divorce and remai.'iage not being disclosed. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 447 The act of March 19, 1886, increasing the pensions of widows from $8 to $12 per month, applied only to such widows as had been married prior to its passage or prior to or during the serv- ice of the soldier. Held: That the concealment of the fact of divorce and remar- riage operated as a fraud in law, and the reissue of the widow's certificate at the rate of $8 per month, and the withholding pay- ment of the same for reimbursement to cover erroneous payments, was proper. 3. Act of March 2, 1895. Reimhursement — Act of March 2^ 1895 — Practice. (Charles Staples, Alice Haynes, completing, 12 P. D., 289.) The applicant, Alice Haynes, who has been allowed reimburse- ment for nursing and attendance upon the soldier's widow, is not entitled to complete the pending claim of the soldier for the purpose of securing further reimbursement. Title in the accrued invalid pension, if any, rested solely in the widow, and never having been allowed it can not be said to exist, and appli- cant can not assert any legal right in it. 4. Fraud and Mistake. Reimhursement — Fraud and mistake — Evidence. (Adelbert. L. Orr, 12 P. D., 394.) The evidence fails to show that claimant had rheumatism prior to his entry in the service, or that he contracted said disease during said service, and in the absence of fraud on the part of the claimant the action of the Bureau in withholding payments to reimburse the Government was erroneous. Reimhursement — Fraud and mistake — Increase — Rerating. (Le- ander H. Prather, 13 P. D., 13.) The error corrected by the reissue, on July 30, 1900, of the cer- tificate of this pensioner was the result of a mistaken diagnosis of the disability on account of which he has been pensioned, and was an error of judgment and not a mistake of fact as to his rank in the service at the time it w^as contracted. The action withholding payment of his pension to reimburse the Govern- ment for excess of pension improperly paid him as of the rank of second lieutenant was, therefore, erroneous. The evidence in this case clearly shows that this pensioner is entitled to a higher rating than he has received since 1875 for his disability resulting from " disease of right shoulder and mus- cular atrophy, result of typhoid fever," the disabling causes of accepted service origin on account of which he is pensioned. Reimhursement — Accrued pension — Fraud and mistake. (John La Mountain, 11 P. D., 395.) 448 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Where Bureau officers have fairly acted in the exercise of dis- cretionary judgment in passing upon evidence in the absence of proof of fraud upon the part of the claimant, no future discovery of testimony which tends to discredit that first acted upon can authorize reimbursement to the Government from accruing pen- sion. Reimbursement — Mistake — Accrued pension. (James Calhoun, deceased, 14 P. D., 152.) Where a pensioner's name is dropped from the rolls under the act of June 27, 1890, and payments of pension are continued through error on the part of a pension agent, the Government may reimburse itself for the money so paid out of the accrued pension in claim in behalf of said pensioner for renewal of pen- sion under said act. REJECTION. See Dependent Widow : No. 4 (15 P. D., 203). See Division of Pension: No. 11 (13 P. D., 411). See Practice: No. 15 (11 P. D., 455). REMARRIAGE. See Dependent Parents: No. 6 (10 P. D., 244; 12 P. D., 509). See Dependent Widow: No. 1 (15 P. D., .329). See Division of Pension : Nos. 1, 18 (15 P. D., 82, 136). See Marriage: No. 2 (bb) (12 P. D., 340; 15 P. D., 413) ; Nos. 14, 15 (9 P. D., 251 ; 14 P. D., 4.36). See Minors: No. 4 (12 P. D., 83). See Reimbursement: No. 2 (13 P. D., 201). See Restoration: Nos. 2, 4 (12 P. D., 114, 139, 316, 510; 13 P. D., 118, 286, 355, 378, 435; 14 P. D., 111,. 128, 194, 198, 318, 411, 452; 13 P. D., 441; 14 P. D., 141; 15 P. D., 446). 1. Of Mexican War Widows. Remarriage— Widows— Act January 29, 1887. (Dora V. Otis, now Cowley, widow, 10 P. D., 324.) Claimant was pensioned as the widow of the soldier from July 16, 1890, to July 4, 1892 ; she remarried July 6, 1892. Held: That her remarriage barred her further title to pen- sion under the act of January 29, 1887, and that her name was properly dropped from the rolls. Restoration — Act January 29, 1887 — Remarriage. (Dora V. Otis, now Cowdey, as widow, 11 P. D., 338.) Section 4708 of the Revised Statutes is applicable to widows pensioned under the first section of the act of January 29, 1887, and upon the remarriage of the widow pensioner she becomes no longer entitled to the pension under the provisions of said first section, the provisions of the second section providing for the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 449 continuance and enjoyment of such pension during the natural lives of the persons entitled thereto being no longer applicable to her. RENEWAL. See Commencement: No. 7 (12 P. D., 17). See Dependent Widow: No. 1 (15 P. D., 329). See Fee: No. 24 (14 P. D., 256). See Practice: No. 7 (9 P. D., 210). See Restoration : No. 2 (13 P. D., 286 ; 15 P. D., 446). REOPENING. See Practice : No. 6 (10 P. D., 321 ; 11 P. D., 95, 112). REPAYMENT. See Division of Pension: No. 3 (11 P. D., 255). RERATING. References. See Appeals: No. 3 (10 P. D., 2.50) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 2^5). See Fee: No. 17 (11 P. D., 202; 13 P. D., 75; 15 P. D., 273). See Increase: No. 5 (13 P. D., 290). See Reduction: No. 2 (9 P. D., 83). See Reimbursement: No. 4 (13 P. D., 13). See Res Judicata: No. 3 (10 P. D., 249). Index. 1. Widow completing. 2. Practice in. 3. Acts of June 27, 1890, and March 6, 1896. 4. Acts of August 4, 1886, and March 2, 1903. 5. Grounds of. 6. Appeals. 1. Widow Completing. Rerating — Widow completing — Increase. (Leander J. Moody, de- ceased, 12 P. D., 212.) A claim for rerating not having been on file with the papers in her deceased husband's invalid claim at the time of his death, the claim of the appellant, the widow of the decedent, that she is entitled to have the original allowance of his pension rerated from the date of his discharge to the date on which a substantial increase in rate was allowed in such claim, and to be paid the amount of the pension which might accrue under such a rerating, is held to be untenable, as under the rule laid down in the case of Rowland A. Colby (7 P. D., 24) " the widow of a deceased soldier has no right, under the law, to make and prosecute an original claim for a rerating of her husband's invalid claim." 13070—06 29 450 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 2. Practice in. Rerating— Practice— Pathology. (Cassilly C. Cook, 12 P. D., 188.) The Bureau issued a certificate of pension at the rate of $15 per month (three-fourths total of rank as captain) for " disease of heart, result of typhoid fever," contracted during the recent war with Spain, to the appellant in this case, but refused to accept as established his allegation that he was also disabled by disease of nervous system (neurasthenia) as a result of such fever. In the judgment of the Department, however, it is clearly shown from the facts j)resented, the evidence adduced, and the medical authorities cited that the nervous affection or neuras- thenia which wholly disqualified the appellant for the perform- ance of manual labor from October 25, 1898, the date of his dis- charge, to May 1, 1900, the date of the medical examination show- ing recovery from neurasthenia, was without doubt a sequel of the typhoid fever of service origin. Held: That it would not be contrary to, or inconsistent with, any provision of law or rule of practice to rerate this claim so as to allow the second-grade rate during the time the appellant is shown to have been wholly incapacitated for the performance of manual labor by the sequelae of typhoid fever, subsequent to the date of filing his application for pension. 3. Acts of Xune 27, 1890, and March 6, 1896. Rerating — Increase — Acts June ^7, 1890, and March 6, 1896. (William I. Bonsall, 13 P. D., 283.) 1. The act of March 6, 1896, has no application to this case for the reason that claimant's original application was not rejected, suspended, nor dismissed. 2. The claim for increase filed March 9, 1899, was properly rejected, as claimant died before being examined by a board of surgeons, as section 4698-J of the Revised Statutes provides that no increase of pension shall be allowed to commence prior to the date of the examining surgeon's certificate establishing the same, made under the pending claim for increase. 4. Acts of August 4, 1886, and March 2, 1903. Rerating — Acts of August 4? 1886., and March ^, 1903 — Practice. (John W. Smith, 14 P. D., 215.) The claimant received the highest possible rating for his dis- ability prior to June 0, 1866, and he was not entitled to a higher rating than he was receiving from August 4, 1886. A rerating was therefore not warranted. The present rating, $30 per month, was shown by the report of the last official examination to be adequate for the pensioned disability, gunshot wound of right thigh. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 451 The action advising the claimant that he is not entitled to the benefit of the act of March 2, 1903, as alleged, was error. He should have been afforded an opportunity to show that he was disabled in an increased degree, irrespective of said act. Final action should be taken on a face brief. 5. Grounds of. Rerating — Schedule of rates. (Henry Crittenden, 9 P. D., 66.) The fact that the. pensioner did not receive as high a rate of pension for slight deafness of both ears as others have received for the same disability during the same period (the schedule of rates for partial deafness having been modified prior to the adjudication of his claim) is not good ground for rerating, the inequality complained of resulting, not from any violation of law, but from a difference of judgment between two adminis- trative officers, each of whom acted within the scope of his legal authority. Rerating — Rate — Dudbility — Evidence. (Alonzo C. Veale, widow completing, 11 P. D., 299.) Title to rerating becomes clear only when it appears manifest from the evidence in the case that the action of the Bureau was the result of mistake of law or fact, but adjudications long since made by officers of the Government fairly using their discretion- ary judgment, within its proper scope, should not be disturbed for light and transient causes; and in this case, thirty years having elapsed since first allowance of pension, and increase under many examinations, the rates fixed will not be disturbed. 6. Appeals. Practice — Appeal — Rerating — Dismissal. (William H. Gore, 15 P. D., 299.) Held: The admission of a claim, with allowance of an unsatis- factory rate of pension, is a final action from which the claimant or his attorney can, by the exercise of a reasonable degree of diligence, appeal, without first having applied at the Bureau for rerating, but he may not " sleep on his rights " for several years, file new claims for increase, see them allowed, or if they or any of them be rejected, make no complaint at the Bureau or to the Department, and then after having eventually secured increase to the maximum rate allowable under the law, appeal to the Department for a review of all the evidence, filed under each of said preceding claims, without having first applied- at the Bureau for a rerating. 452 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Practice — Appeal — Rrrcdlmj — Increase. (James O. Caperton, 15 P. D., 332.) Claimant by filing increase claims without protest as to his original rating, waived his right of appeal therefrom without first applying to the Commissioner of Pensions for a rerating and read judication of the question of the sufficiency or propriety of that rating and securing a decision on such question, and his appeal from such original rating, under the circumstances, with- out having first applied for a rerating of his pension, will be dismissed. Practice — Appeal — Rerating. (Andrew H. Wood, 15 P. D., 333.) A pensioner may appeal from a rating allowed him without first filing a claim for rerating when he has not subsequently filed any claim for increase or otherwise impliedly accepted such rating as sufficient; distinguishing case of James O. Caperton (15 P. D., No. 97). REPRESENTATIVE OF ATTORNEY. See Attorneys: No. 17 (9 P. D., 478). REPUTATION. See Estoppel: No. 3 (14 P. D., 469). RESIDENCE IN SOLDIERS' HOME. See Division of Pension: No. 10 (12 P. D., 237, 490; 15 P. D., 56, 132). RES JUDICATA. Beferences. See Dependent Parents: No. 9 (15 P. D., 172). See Division of Pension : No. 4 (15 P. D., 90) ; No. 15 (15 P. D., Ill, 557). See Divorce: No. 10 (15 P. D., 553). See Increase: No. 5 (13 P. D., 455). See Jurisdiction : No. 4 (13 P. D., 465). See Practice: No. 27 (13 P. D., 465). See Restoration: No. 6 (15 P. D., 483). Index. 1. Not applicable to pension claims. 2. Fraud or mistake. 3. Disturbing old adjudications. 1. Not Applicable to Pension Claims. Res judicata — 8 tare decisis — Reconsideration. (James Duval, 9 , P. D., 218.) Neither the doctrine of res judicata nor stare decisis is strictly applicable to claims for pension, and when adopted by the De- partment simply becomes a rule which each administration pre- I. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 453 . scribes for itself as a matter of policy or convenience, and may be waived, suspended, or ignored, as justice, policy, or convenience requires. (Case of Mary E. Eastridge, 8 P. D., 5.) 2. Fraud or Mistake. Res judicata — Evidence — Fraud or mistake. (Minors of Daniel M. Easley, 12 P. D., 179.) The service origin of the soldier's fatal disease having been ad- mitted in the case of the widow, after a special examination, the rejection of the minors' claim on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish such origin is held to have been error. 3. Disturbing Old Adjudications. Res judicata — Stare decisis — ReraMng, (Charles F. Borthwick, alias Franklin Brown, 10 P. D., 249.) Cases long since adjudicated by previous administrations will not be disturbed for slight or trivial reasons, nor upon mere matter of opinion as to the weight of evidence, nor upon any matter involving merely an exercise of judgment or discretion, but only when glaring .error, mistake, or manifest injustice is apparent from the record or the evidence. See Birney Hoyt, 1 P. D., 70; Isaac Sell, 2 P. D., 172; Wallace G. Bone, 2 P. D., 310; John Burnham, 4 P. D., 98; Jackson Martin, 7 P. D., 265 ; Mary E. Eastridge, 8 P. D., 5 ; George W. Amos, (ibid., 271) ; James M. Marshall, (ibid., 395) ; James Duval, 9 P. D., 218; William Wilson, 10 P. D., 232.) RESTORATION. References. See Accrued Pension : No. 9 (13 P. D., 188). See Adulterous Cohabitation: Nos. 7, 8, 9 (14 P. D., 362; 15 P. D., 48, 90). See Dependent Widow: No. 1 (15 P. D., 329). See Decree of Nullity : No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Desertion: No. 3 ( 9 P. D., 442) ; No. 3 (a) (11 P. D., 373) : No. 4 (b) (15 P. D., 110, 525). See Disloyalty: Nos. 1, 9, 11 (9 P. D., 294; 13 P. D., 249, 259, 395; 15P. D., 76). . See Divorce: No. (14 P. D., 438; 15 P. D., 128). See Estoppel: No. 4 (15 P. D., 47). See Fee: Nos. 1, 8 (9 P. D., 147, 3.55). See Fraud and Mistake: No. 1 (14 P. D., 57). See Increase: No. 5 (13 P. D., 455). See Marriage: No. 15 (15 P. D., 503). See Prac'Hce: Nos. 7, 1(5 (9 P. D., 210, 288; 11 P. D., 122). See Remarriage: No. 1 (10 P. D., 324; 11 P. D., 338). See Service; No. 4 (15 P. D., 158). 454 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. RESTOHATION— Continued. Index. 1. Increase. 2. Act March 3, 1901. 3. Section 4719, Revised Statutes. 4. Void marriage. 1. Increase. Restoration — Increase. (George Baltzer, 10 P. D., 37.) Claimant having been a pensioner under the act of June 27, 1890, at the rate of $6 per month, his name was dropped from the roll under said act, and was i^laced on the roll under the general law. September 16, 1896, he filed a claim for renewal and in- crease under the act of June 27, 1890, which was allowed by reissue on October 7, 1897, at $10 per month from date of filing, September 16, 1896. Held: That this was error; as the claim was one for restora- tion his name should have been restored at the rate of $6 instead of $10, as increase can only commence from the date of the cer- tificate of medical examination showing an increased disability under section 4698J, Revised Statutes. 2. Act March 3, 1901. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Widows. (Mary E. Rice, formerly Paulding, alleged w^idow, 12 P. D., 114.) It appearing from the official records of the War" Department that during the period that this appellant was the wife of the deceased officer, from January 13, 1880, to May 1, 1883, he ren- dered no military service in any w^ar, but that during the whole of said j)eriod his service in the Regular Army of the United States was that of a post surgeon in time of peace, she has no title to restoration, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1901, of the pension which she formerly received as the widow of said officer. Widow'' s claim — Act of March 3, 1901 — Remarriage. (Susan Crys- ler, widow, 12 P. D., 139.) The claijnant's name never having been on the rolls under the general law, she has no title to pension under said act; and as there is no pensionable period between the date of the death of the soldier and claimant's remarriage her name can not now be placed on the rolls under the general law. Restoration' — Act of March 3, 1901 — Remarriage — Widoivs. (Henrietta Eldridge, widow, 12 P. D., 316.) As the claimant has never received a pension and is not entitled to one under existing law, the act of March 3, 1901, con- ferred no benefit upon her. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 456 Marriage and divorce — Act of March 3, 1901. (Annie M. Palmer, now Umberger, widow, 12 P. D., 510.) It appearing from the evidence in this case and from this ap- pellant's own admission that she w^as divorced from her second husband, Thomas E. Umberger, upon his application, she has no title whatever, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1901, to restoration of the pension she formerly received as the widow of the deceased soldier, David D. Palmer. Restoration under act of March 3^ 1901 — Divorce — Widows, (Hannah C. Rich, as widow, 13 P. D., 118.) Soldier died while in the service, and his widow was pensioned. She received the pension until her remarriage, October 13, 1871. Her last husband died December 5, 1898, in New York. On his petition he had obtained a divorce from claimant. Held: That the divorce having been obtained by her second husband and not upon her ow^n application, she has no title to pension under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1901. Restoration — Renewal — Acts of March 3^ 1901^ and March 5, 18Go. (Mary Nicholas, as widow of Francis Wallace, 13 P. D., 286.) Pension certificate having been duly issued in December, 1864, signed, and delivered to claimant as widow of the soldier, she was " placed upon the pension roll " thereby within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1901, although no pension was ever paid her under such certificate, pension being subsequently, under the act of March 3, 1865, granted and paid the soldier's minor child. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Remarriage. (Sophia J. E. AYoehl, as widow, 13 P. D., 355.) Claimant was pensioned under the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, as the Avidow of Ramond Woehl, but her name was dropped from the roll because of her remarriage in 1894. She was divorced from her second husband in 1901, upon her own petition, whereupon she filed a claim for restoration to the pension roll under the act of March 3, 1901. Held : That as her name was never on the pension roll " be- cause of her husband's death as a result of wound or injuries re- ceived or disease contracted in ' the military or naval service,' " and was not soldier's lawful wife " during the period of his service in any war," she does not come within the provisions of the act of March 3, 1901, and her name can not be restored. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Two pensions. (Ann M. Hale, now Butterbaugh, widow, 13 P. D., 378.) A widow pensioner on account of a second soldier husband may file and prosecute a claim under the act of March 3, 1901, 456 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. for restoration to pension on account of a prior soldier husband, and may be restored under such claim on surrender of her pres- ent certificate, payments under which may be continued to date of issuance of certificate of restoration and deducted from pay- ments thereunder. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901— ^Remarriage — Divorce. (Su- sannah Elmore, formerly Long, as widow, 13 P. D., 435.) Claimant's pension under the general law having terminated by reason of her subsequent marriage to a man who procured a divorce from her, she is not entitled to restoration under the act of March 3, 1901. Restoimtion — Act of March 3, 1901 — Divorce. (Emaline S. Lamb, formerly Griswold, widow, 14 P. D., 111.) The act of March 3, 1901, does not relate to the divorce from any other than the husband on account of whom a widow's pen- sion was terminated. Claimant having been legally divorced, on her own application and without fault on her part, from Artemus Bennett, on account of her marriage to whom her pension was terminated, she is en- titled to be restored to the pension rolls under the provision of said act. Restoration! — A ct of March 3, 1901 — Remarriage — Dropping. ( Isa- bella Winfield, widow, 14 P. D., 128.) Claimant, a pensioner under the general law, was deprived of pension, and payment thereafter made to the guardian of the minor, under what is now section 4706, Revised Statutes, because she had abandoned the care and custody of the said minor. She thereafter remarried, she claims the second husband is dead, and invokes the act of March 3, 1901. Held: The act of March 3, 1901, has no bearing whatever, either by implication or otherwise, upon the statute under which this claimant's pension was suspended ; it relates only to the title and status of widows whose names have been dropped from the pension rolls because of their remarriage. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Remarriage — Dropping. (Is- abella Winfield, widow, 14 P. D., 194.) The act of March 3, 1901, relates only to the title and status of widows whose names have been dropped from the pension rolls because of their remarriage, and has no application to wid- ows whose names were dropped under section 4706 of the Revised Statutes. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Divorce. (Laura A. Ingalls, widow, 14 P. D., 198.) Claimant's second husband secured a divorce from her on his application prior to the date of the passage of the act of March PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 457 3, 1901. The divorce subseqiienth^ secured on her own applica- tion is without force and effect and is not valid. Action affirmed. Restoration — Act of March J, 1901 — Fraud and mistake — Evi- dence. (Sarah Mathers, formerly Miller, widow, 14 P. D., 318.) 1. The act of March 3, 1901, predicates title to restoration upon these conditions: (1) That claimant was the wife of soldier dur- ing his military service; (2) that pension had been allowed her under the provisions of the general law; (3) that her name was dropped from the roll on account of her remarriage; (4) that said remarriage has been dissolved by death, or by divorce " upon her own application and without fault on her part;" (5) that she is dependent within the meaning of the acts of June 27, 1890, and May 9, 1900. If these essential facts are shown affirma- tivel}^ the claimant " shall be entitled to have her name again placed on the pension roll," and it is error to adjudicate the claim de novo. 2. In cases where the Commissioner of Pensions, in the exercise of his discretion, has passed upon given facts, has admitted the title of claimant to a pension, and has issued a certificate there- for, it is contrary to public policy for a successor in his office, the material facts being the same, again to place claimant's title in issue, unless there be newly discovered evidence of facts ma- terial to said issue, or evidence of fraud, or error in law, or plain mistake of fact — not mistake of judgment in matters involving the exercise of discretion on the part of an officer. 3. Evidence merely cumulative in its character is not " newly discovered evidence " warranting the reopening of a claim. Restoration — A ct of March 3^ 1901 — Divorce — Evidence. ( Elizabeth Vallean, now Goshorn, widow, 14 P. D., 411.) The evidence shows that claimant secured a divorce from her second husband on her cross bill by a verdict of a jury and was awarded alimony. She therefore is entitled to restoration under the act of March 3, 1901, as it must be presumed the divorce was granted without fault on her part. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Divorce. (Ellen A. Moer, widow, 14 P. D., 452.) Claimant was dropped from the roll on account of her remar- riage ; and she was thereafter divorced from her second husband upon his own petition, the record showing competent jurisdic- tion. There are no indicia of fraud on the part of either party to the decree tending to show an attempt to defraud the Govern- ment. Held: Claimant has no status under the act of March 3, 1901. The fact that claimant's divorced husband died prior to the 458 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. filing of the claim for restoration does not give her title under the act of March 8, 1901. Restoration — Act of March 3, 1901 — Construction. (Annie Gaebel, now Kohr, widow, 15 P. D., 381.) To entitle a claimant to have her name restored to the roll under the act of March 3, 1901, it must be shown, among other things, that the soldier died as the result of wound or injury received or disease contracted in his military service in a war. Restoration — Renewal — Act of March 3, 1901 — Remarriage — Di- vorce. (Rosetta Washington, widoAv, 15 P. D., 446.) The man to whom the claimant was held to have remarried being yet living and undivorced from her, she has no title to renewal under the act of March 3, 1901. The question of the fact or the legality of a widow's remar- riage may not properly be adjudicated or determined in a claim under that act. 3. Section 4719, Revised Statutes. Restoration— Rate. (Joseph C. King, 9 P. D., 430.) Where the degree of disability shown at time of original allowance did not warrant the rate of pension named in the original certificate, and pensioner's name was dropped from the rolls by reason of his failure to claim the same for three years, upon application for restoration pension may be restored at a less rate than that originally allowed. Restoration — Section Jf719^ Revised Statutes — Dropping. (Charles W. Berger, 13 P. D., 392.) Soldier being a pensioner at the rate of $8 per month ceased to draw his pension subsequent to September, 1864, and was thereafter dropped from the roll under section 4719, Revised Statutes. On application for restoration his name was restored at the rate of $4 per month, the rate to which he was shown to be entitled by the certificate of a medical examination held under the claim. Held: 'No error. Restoration — Section 1^719 — Dropping. (Eliza G. Brown, widow, 14 P. D., 106.) It is a satisfactory accounting, within the meaning of section 4719 of the Revised Statutes, of a pensioner's failure for three years to claim his pension, when it satisfactorily appears from the evidence that such pension had not legally terminated in some of the w^ays or for some of the causes specified, or by necessary implication included in the pension laws as terminating pension. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 459 4. Void Marriage. Restoration — Marriage — Remarriage — Void marriage. ( Hannah Kingsley, widow, 13 P. D., 441.) The evidence showing that the claimant's remarriage, by which her name was dropped from the rolls, Avas a nullity, she is entitled to restoration from date of dropping. Restoration — Fraud or mistake — Void marriage. (Eliza J. Eve- land, widow, 14 P. D., 141.) Appellant was pensioned under the general law from May 17, 1871, to February 16, 1874, when her name was dropped from the rolls because of her supposed marriage with one Gray. Sub- sequently the minors' application was rejected on the ground that the widow was still living, her marriage to Gray being de- clared null and void on the ground that he had a wife living and undivorced at the time of his pretended marriage to claimant. Whereupon the widow applied for restoration, but her claim was rejected on the ground of no record nor other satisfactory evi- dence showing origin of fatal disease, and no satisfactory evi- dence of the existence of the same at discharge or for a long time thereafter, and the claimant, though aided by special examina- tion, had failed to establish the claim. Held: That claimant having once established her claim and having been allowed and paid the pension, that finding can not be legally set aside unless positive affirmative testimony is pro- duced showing fraud or that the testimony on which the claim was allowed was not true. 5. Fraud Prevents. Restoration — Vested right — Dropping — Notice — Fraud. (Annie Hughes, widow, 15 P. D., 475.) The grant of pension is the bestowal of a gratuity. Ele- mentary rules of equity so far obtain in proceedings for pension as to justify the Department in refusing to apply certain stat- utes governing procedure in claims where appellant's original status is acquired through fraud. Where a party is dropped from the rolls on grounds that are untenable and the right to restoration, so far as said grounds for dropping are concerned, is favorably determined on appeal and said party is then refused restoration by the Bureau on other grounds based on the fraud of the claimant, if the fraud of the claimant clearly appears the party is estopped from claiming any advantage under the act of December 21, 1893. 460 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 6. No Disability Prevents. Restoration — Evidence — Fraud and mistake — Res judicata. (Wil- liam Henley, 15 P. D., 483.) Claimant was dropped from the rolls, after a special examina- tion, upon the ground that the evidence fails to show service origin of his disability. He applied for restoration, which was refused upon the same grounds. The evidence upon which the claim was originally allowed was weak. Newly discovered evi- dence, not cumulative, adduced upon special examination, dis- closed new and material facts, presenting a weaker case. While it is contrary to public policy twice to put a claimant's title in issue on the same evidence, errors in law or newly dis- covered evidence disclosing fraud or plain mistake of fact (not mistake of judgment on facts involving the exercise of discre- tion) fully warrant the read judication of the claim de novo. The newly discovered evidence in this case indicates mistakes of fact in the original adjudication of the claim, and refusal of restoration Avas not error. Distinguishing the case of Sarah Mathers (14 P. D., 318). ANNOTATION. T\Tiere a widow Avas dropped from the rolls under the general law by reason of remarriage and later obtains a Avidow's pen- sion under the act of June 27, 1890, as the widow of her second husband, and while in receipt of said last-mentioned pension applies for restoration under the act of March 3, 1901, as the widow of her first husband, and all the requirements of the act of March 3, 1901, are complied with, except as to her dependence, the question presents itself, " Will the evidence on file as to her dependence in her June, act claim be sufficient to show the dependence required by the act of March 3, 1901 ? I think not, but am of the opinion that proof of present dependence must be filed, and for the following reasons: The Wheeler case (15 P. D., 329) decides that a widow on the rolls under the act of June 27, 1890, may not have her name dropped from the rolls for a cessation of dependency. Therefore, if a widow has been on the rolls for some length of time under the act of June 27, 1890, the proof on file in that case might not show her present dependence. The widow may not noiv be de- pendent. The act of March 3, 1901, requires that the widow must be dependent note,' that is, Avhen her claim for restoration is filed, and it has been decided in the case of Sophia J. E. Woehl (13 P. D., 355) that in order to restore the name of a widoAv to the rolls under the act of March 3, 1901, every requirement of the act must be established. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 461 RETIRED OFFICER. See Line of Duty: No. 12 (11 P. D., 28). RETROACTIVE LAWS. See Construction of Statutes: No. 1 (11 P. D., 77, 90). See Division of Pension : No. 4 (15 P. D., 342). See Disloyalty: No. 9 (13 P. D., 249, 259). See Marriage: No. 2 (s) (15 P. D., 462). RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION. See Dependent Widow : No. 3 (13 P. D., 31). RETROSPECTIVE LAWS. See Disloyalty: No. 9 (13 P. D., 249, 259). REVIEW. See Appeals: No. 3 (10 P. D., 374) ; No. 4 (11 P. D., 519). REVENUE CUTTER. See Service: No. 11 (9 P. D., 96, 182, 395; 10 P. D., 401). RHEUMATISM. See Death Cause: No. 7 (12 P. D., 89). See Pathological Sequence: Nos. 13, 22 (13 P. D., 192; 15 P. D., 249). RHODE ISLAND LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (hh) (15 P. D., 543). See Tables of State Statutes : for 15 P. D. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE. See Fee: No. 3 (9 P. D., 136). RULE 1 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Appeals : No. 1 (9 P. D., 132). RULE 2 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Attorneys : No. 1 (10 P. D., 143). See Practice : No. 17 (12 P. D., 411). RULE 12 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Attorneys : No. 9 (9 P. D., 213). RULE 13 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Attorneys : No. 10 (14 P. D., 328). See Practice: No. 25 (14 P. D., 68). RULE 16 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Division of Pension : No. 15 (14 P. D., 313). See Practice : No. 21 (13 P. D., 203). 462 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. KULE 19 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Division of Pension : No. 15 (15 P. D., 218). See Practice: No. 22 (13 P. D., 542). RULE 20 OF RULES OF PRACTICE. See Practice : No. 10 (13 P. D., 347). SABINE INDIAN WAR. See Service: No. 3 (11 P. D., 177). SCHEDULE OF RATES. See Rebating: No. 5 (9 P. D., 66). SEA PAY. See Commencement: No. 11 (12 P. D., 428). SECRETARY OF WAR. See Jurisdiction : No. 5 (13 P. D., 416). SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. See Limitation : No. 2 (9 P. D., 152). SECTIONS 2418-2424 AND 2428, REVISED STATUTES. See Bounty Land: No. 3 (15 P. D., 312). SECTION 2444, REVISED STATUTES. See Bounty Land: No. 1 (12 P. D., 184). SECTIONS 4692, 4693, AND 4694, REVISED STATUTES. See Desertion : No. 1 (9 P. D., 382) ; No. 6 (9 P. D., 255). See Jurisdiction : No. 5 (13 P. D., 416). SECTION 4693, REVISED STATUTES. See Service: Nos. 10, 20 (12 P. D., 385, 500). SECTION 4698i, REVISED STATUTES. See Commencement : No. 3 (9 P. D., 259; 14 t. D., 69). SECTION 4701, REVISED STATUTES. See Service: No. 21 (12 P. D., 407). SECTION 4702, REVISED STATUTES. See Accrued Pension: No. 2 (9 P. D., 8). See Line of Duty : No. 7 (14 P. D., 114). See Minors: No. 3 (10 P. D., 405). See Practice: No. 2 (15 P. D., 486). See Special Act: No. 1 (11 P. D., 424). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 463 SECTIONS 4704, 4705, 4707, AND 4723, REVISED STATUTES. See Dependent Parents: No. 1 (10 P. D., 104). SECTION 4705, REVISED STATUTES. See Legitimacy: No. 4 (15 P. D., 38(j). See Marriage: No. 11 (12 P. D., 517) ; No. 15 (11 P. D., 181). .SECTION 4706, REVISED STATUTES. See Abandonment: (7 P. D., 437; 8 P. D. 42.) SECTION 4707, REVISED STATUTES. See Dependent Parents (the whole chapter): (9 P. D,, 287; 10 P. D., 78, 104, 153, 244, 299 ; 11 P. D., 171, 247, 297 ; 12 P. D., 24, 129, 131, 361, 401, 509 ; 13 P. D., 241, 432 ; 14 P. D., 267, 271, 294 ; 15 P. D., 18, 100, 106, 172, 194, 335). See Dependent Widow : No. 5 (15 P. D., 324). See Dependent Brothers and Sisters: No. 1 (14 P. D., 4). See Fee: No. 14 (11 P. D., 514). SECTION 4707, REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF JUNE 27, 1890. See Dependent Parents: No. 2 (11 P. D., 171, 247; 15 P. D., 18, 100, 106, 194; 10 P. D., 78) ; No. 3 (12 P. D., 24) ; No. 4 (12 P. D., 361; 13 P. D., 432) ; No. 6 (10 P. D., 244; 12 P. D., 509) ; No. 7 (10 P. D., 299) ; No. 9 (15 P. D., 172). See Fee: No. 14 (11 P. D., 514). SECTION 4713, REVISED STATUTES. See Anterebellion Service: No. 1 (9 P. D., 220). See Commencement: No. 5 (11 P. D., 175). See Limitation : No. 4 (10 P. D., 417). See Navy Pensions: No. 1 (11 P. D., 410). SECTION 4714, REVISED STATUTES. See Declarations : Nos. 3, 4 (9 P. D., 7; 10 P. D., 292). SECTION 4715, REVISED STATUTES. See Navy Pensions : No. 3 (12 P. D., 166). See Payment of Pension : No. 2 (10 P. D., 281). See Reimbursement: No. 1 (10 P. D., 84). SECTION 4716, REVISED STATUTES. See Accrued Pension: No. 5 (11 P. D., 241) ; Nos. 10, 11 (14 P. D., 104, 422). See Disloyalty : Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (9 P. D., 146, 279, 294, 366 ; 10 P. D., 72, 86, 125, 210 ; 11 P. D., 64, 124, -136, 290, 327 ; 12 P. D. 12, 45 ; 13 P. D., 128, 249, 259, 395 ; 14 P. D., 104, 422 ; 15 P.D., 76, 337, 369). 464 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. SECTION 4716, REVISED STATUTES, AND ACT OF JUNE 27, 1890. See Accrued Pension: No. 5 (11 P. D., 241) ; Nos. 10, 11 (14 P. D., 104, 422). See Disloyalty: No. 1 (10 P. D., 72, 210; 15 P. D., 70, 369) ; No. (13 P. D., 248, 259) ; No. 10 (14 P. D., 104, 422) ; No. 11 (13 P. D., 349,395). SECTION 4719, REVISED STATUTES. See Accrued Pension: No. 9 (13 P. D., 188). See Restoration: No. 3 (13 P. D., 392). SECTION 4720, REVISED STATUTES. See Commencement: No. 12 (13 P. D., 331). See Fraud and Mistake: No. 4 (13 P. D., 428). SECTION 4730, REVISED STATUTES. See Commencement: No. 5 (11 P. D., 175). SECTION 4756, REVISED STATUTES. See Navy Pensions: Nos. 1, 3 (11 P. D., 410; 12 P. D., 166). SECTION 4757, REVISED STATUTES. See Navy Pensions: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (11 P. D., 410; 12 P. D., 166; 14 P. D., 224). SENILE CATARACT. See Line of Duty: No. 16 (14 P. D., 495). SENILITY. See Disability: No. 7 (12 P. D., 50). SEPARATION. See Divorce: No. 6 (15 P. D., 128). See Division of Pension: Nos. 4, 7, 16 (12 P. D., 56, 364, 421, 507; 13 P. D., 24, 301). SERVICE. References. See Age: No. 2 (11 P. D., 193, 240, 286). See Anterebellion Service: Nos. 1, 2 (9 P. D., 220, 193). See Army Nurses: No. 1 (9 P. D., 188). See Bounty Land: Nos. 2, 3 (15 P. D., 62, 147, 312, 351, 561). See Board of Enrollment: No. 1 (11 P. D,, 183). See Desertion: No. 2 (9 P. D., 144) ; No. 3 (11 P. D., 332) ; No. 3 (a) (12 P. D., 25.3, 379) ; No. 4 (a) (12 P. D., 450) ; No. 4 (c) (13 P. D., 346; 14 P. D., 552) ; No. 4 (d) (15 P. D., 215) ; No. 4 (f) (14 P. D., 352, 502) ; No. 5 (12 P. D., 137) ; No. 7 (15 P. D., 276). See Discharge: Nos. 1, 4, 5 (10 P. D., 14; 14 P. D., 283, 326, 413; 15 P. D., 378). See Evidence: No. 11 (11 P. D., 523). See Identity: No. 1 (10 P. D., 33). See Jurisdiction: No. 5 (13 P. D., 416). See Practice: No. 17 (12 P. D., 157). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 465 SERVICE— Continued. Index. 1. Presumption as to. 2. Record of. 3. In Indian wars. 4. In Mexican war. 5. In war of the rebellion. 6. In Beaty's Independent Scouts. 7. Civilian employees. 8. Drafted men and substi- tutes. 9. In Home Guards. 10. In the militia. 11. On revenue cutters. 12. As pilot. 13. Unassigned recruit. 14. Not service in war. 15. Act March 25, 1862. 16. Act June 27, 1890. Index — Continued. 17. Muster out to receive commission. 18. As substitute. 19. Enrollment and muster as wagon master. 20. Enlistment. 21. Section 4701 Revised Statutes and act June 27, 1890. 22. Length of. 23. Mississippi Marine Bri- gade. 24. Termination of war of the rebellion. 25. Prior service. 26. Contract surgeons — Act June 27, 1890. 27. Desertion. 28. Evidence — Record. 1. Presumption as to. Service — Discharge — Presumption. (Minors of Daniel Hallowaj^ 9 P. D., 18.) Where the record of the War Department shows soldier's en- listment in a three months' service in 1861, and said Department reports that it is unable from any evidence before it to determine soldier's final record ; and the records of said Department show a subsequent honorable service and discharge of said soldier from a three years' service, it is Held: That as no charge of desertion, absence without leave, or other counter presumption is involved, the legal presumption of innocence should prevail, and soldier be presumed to have been discharged from said first service at the expiration of his first term of enlistment. 2. Record of. Service — Jiirisdictiorb — Record. (David H. Dyer, 9 P. D., 87.) The amended record of the War Department shows claimant accepted into service on December 20, 1864; paid as private up to and discharged on April 13, 1865. He was furloughed on January 14, 1865 ; availed himself of said furlough on February 2, 1865; held himself under military orders, and obeyed the order of the military authorities requiring him to report at Indianapolis. His discharge was delivered on May 29, 1865. He had no knowledge, neither did he receive any intimation of any kind, previous to x^pril 13, 1865, that he had been or was to be discharged. 13070—06- -30 466 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Held: 1. On the record, corroborated by reliable evidence, sol- di^Y was in the service of the United States during the war of the rebellion for more than ninety days. (Poland's Ajopeal, 8 P. D., 266, followed.) 2. This Department is bound to accept as true the iin im- peached record of the War Department, but it alone has poAver to determine what effect such record shall have 0]i a claimant's pensionable rights. 3. In Indian Wars. Service — Indian wars — Act July 27^ 1892. (Wilhemina Roth, widow, 9 P. D., 143.) The Florida war closed August 14, 1842. Soldier's service at Newport, Ky., from November 9, 1839 to October 31, 1842, when forwarded to his regiment, which he joined November 29, 1842, was not service " for thirty days in the Black Hawi^ war, the Creek war, the Cherokee disturbances, or the Florida war with the Seminole Indians, embracing a period from 1832 to 1842, inclusive^" and his widow is not pensionable under the act of July 27, 1892. Service — Indian wars — act July 27., 1892. (Susan C. Peniston, widow, 9 P. D., 178.) As the report from the War Department show^s that the mili- tary organization in which this soldier served from August 26, 1832,, to September 30, 1832, cooperated with the main body of troops in the suppression of the Indian hostilities during the Black Hawk w ar, his service is held to be sufficient to comply with the requirements of the act of July 27, 1892. Service — Indian wars — Act July 27., 1892. (Catharine Waters, widow, 9 P. D., 206.) The official records show^ that the soldier did not serte the required time in the Florida w^ar to entitle his w^idow to pension under the act of July 27, 1892. Service — Indian wars — Act July 27^ 1892. (Elizabeth W. Wood, widow, lOP. D., 26). Under the act of July 27, 1892, service rendered in the Black Hawk war, the Creek war, the Cherokee disturbance, or the Florida war with the Seminole Indians must be rendered in one of the wars therein expressly named. No other or different military service, even though rendered in the United States Army during the period named in said act, would be a pension- able service. Service — Act July 27^ 1892 — Sabine Indian war. (R. G. English, 11 P. D., 177.) The Sabine Indian war not being one of the wars named in PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 467 the act of July 27, 1892, the soldiers who served therein are not entitled to pension under said act. Service — Acts June 27^ 1902^ and July 27\ 1892 — Indian wars — Limitations. (Lewis Lawley, 14 P. D., 13.) The act of June 27, 1902, extending the provisions, limitations, and benefits of the act of July 27, 1892, does not limit its bene- fits to those who served and were discharged under the immedi- ate military authority of the United States only, but to those who served and were discharged under State, Territorial, or provisional authority as well. Service acts of July 27., 1892^ and June 27^ 1902 — Indian wars. (John L. Johnson, 14 P. D., 296.) " The act of June 27, 1902, extending the provisions, limita- tions, and benefits of the act of July 27, 1892, does not limit its benefits to those who served and were discharged under the imme- diate military authority of the United States only, but to those who served and were discharged under State, territorial, or pro- visional authority as well." (See case of Lewis Lawley, 14 P. D., 13.) Held: That for pensionable purposes the roll on file in the Office of the Auditor for the War Department, showing the date and place of muster in and muster out, and that claimant served more than thirty days, is sufficient evidence of service to the Government of the United States within the meaning of the terms of the act of June 27, 1902. Service — Record — Evidence — Act of June 27., 1902. (Samuel T. Curtis, 14 P. D., 298.) There is no record evidence to show that the claimant ever rendered the service alleged, or that he was paid for such service by the United States. Hence the Department is without author- ity to grant pension under the act of June 27, 1902. Service — Indian wars — Act July 27., 1892 — Evidence. (Margaret A. Davis, widow, 14 P. D., 408.) The evidence showing that soldier was paid for one month and twenty-nine days' service, including twenty-nine days' travel pay, he is held to have been in the service of the United States for thirty days within the meaning of the act of July 27, 1892. Service— Act of June 27, 1902— Act of Jidy 27, 1892— Declara- tions — Cherokee disturbance. (Mary A. Elliott, widow, 15 P. D., 23.) A declaration for widow's pension under the act of July 27, 1892, alleging service in some of the wars or disturbances speci- fied in that act, and otherwise valid except for a misallegation as to the organization in which such service was rendered, is not invalid because of such misallegation. 468 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Service in the Cherokee disturbances in 1838 is not pensionable under the act of June 27, 1902, but only under the act of July. 27, 1892. Service in a State organization which was not mustered into the service or paid by the United States is not pensionable service under the act of July 27, 1892, although the State may have subsequently, under a special act of Congress, been reim- bursed by the United States for the expenses to said State of such service. Service — Indian wars — Evidence — Record. (Lenetta A. Daugh- trey, widow, 15 P. D., 44.) The record shows service in the Cherokee war from May 21 to June 10, 1836, and two days' service in the Sabine disturbances. Held : Insufficient length of service to give the wddow title. The Government record as to length of service is the best evi- dence of such fact, and parol testimony is wholly inadmissible to controvert such record except for the purpose of proving fraud or mistake. The opinions in the cases of Swann (8 P. D., 149) and Davis (14 P. D., 408) are hereby expressly overruled so far as they conflict with this present opinion. Service — Indian wars — Act of June 27^ 1902 — Record. (Charles Bolds, or Bowles, 15 P. D., 51.) The Department can see and define but two conditions which confer a pensionable status under the act of June 27, 1902 : First. A record showing that the soldier was regularly mustered in, served thirty days or more, and was honorably discharged under the United States military. State, Territorial, or provisional authority. Second. In the absence of such record of service, a record of pay to the soldier by the United States shall be deemed sufficient evidence of such service. Service — Indian wars — Act of June 27 .^ 1902 — Record. (Agnes Trickle, widow, 15 P. D., 50.) Claimant is not entitled to a pension under the acts above re- ferred to, there being no record that her husband was ever regu- larly mustered in, served thirty days or more, and was honorably discharged under the United States military, Stat«, Territorial, or provisional authorities, or that payment for like service w^as ever made by the United States. Action affirmed. Service — Indian wars — Acts of July 27, 1892, and June 27, 1902. (Alexander McAlister, 15 P. D., 124.) Neither the act of July 27, 1892, nor the act of June 27, 1902, provides for pensioning survivors of any Indian war occurring PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 469 in California, except the California Indian disturbances of 1851 and 1852 ; therefore claimant's service, rendered in California in the year 1856, is not a pensionable service under said acts. Service— Indian wars— Act of July 27, 1892— Act of June 27, 1902. (Moses Gillespie, 15 P. D., 130.) Service in the Cherokee disturbance in 1838 is not pensionable service under the act of June 27, 1902; and service in said dis- turbance in Captain Patterson's company, Georgia Volunteers, is not pensionable service under the act of July 27, 1892, because said organization was a State organization solely, and was never in the military service of the United States (widow of John Elliott, 15 P. D., 23). The provision of the act of June 27, 1902, including service under State, Territorial, and provisional authorities, has no ap- plication to service in the Avars specified in the act of July 27, 1892, but solely to that in wars specified in the former act. Service — Indian wars — Act of July 27, 1892 — Act of June 27, 1902 — Honorable discharge — Discharge. (Mary E. Conner, widow, 15 P. D., 201.) The acts of July 27, 1892, and June 27, 1902, relating to service in Indian wars in respect to honorable discharge, are controlled by the rule of construction in claims arising under the act of June 27, 1890. An honorable discharge from each and every term of enlist- ment in said Indian war is a prerequisite to pension under the provisions of the above-mentioned acts. Service— Indian wars— Acts of July 27, 1892, and June 27, 1902. (Katharina Eberlein, widow, 15 P. D., 375.) The service in the Texas and New Mexico Indian war, in which soldier participated, was not embraced within the period named in the acts of July 27, 1892, and June 27, 1902 ; therefore his widow has no title to pension thereunder. Service — Indian wars — Florida war — Act of June 27, 1902. (Mary E. Mitchell, widow, 15 P. D., 394.) The act of June 27, 1902, referring to " the Florida wars with the Seminole Indians from 1842 to 1858, inclusive," contemplated such disturbances and outbreaks with those Indians during that period as were so seriously imperiling life and property as to necessitate the organized military intervention of the United States, State, Territorial, or provisional authorities, whether such disturbances or outbreaks technically constituted " wars " or not. 470 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Service — Indian wars — Cay use India7is — Oregon — Act of July ^7, 1892— Act of June 27, 1902—Evidencel (Thomas Jefferson Gregory, 15 P. D., 396.) It appearing from a report from the adjutant-general of Ore- gon that claimant enlisted in the First Regiment of Oregon Rifle- men, in the Cayuse war of 1847 and 1848, on January 28, 1848, and was mustered out April 12, 1848, and that the commissioner appointed by the governor of Oregon, under act of October 31, 1849, to audit the claims growing out of said war, in his report submitted in accordance therewith, found there was due said claimant for such services the sum of $122.70, and also from testimony filed that he actually served in said organization in said war during said period, it is held that under the second proviso of the act of June 27, 1892, the proof shows that he ren- dered the necessary thirty days' service to confer title under said act, notwithstanding there is no record of such service in the War Department. The evidence shows that the claimant rendered the necessary thirty days' service to confer title to a pension under the pro- visions of the above-named act. 4. In Mexican War. Service — Mexican war. (Helen M. Geiger, widow, 9 P. D., 28.) Soldier enlisted March 20, 1848; was mustered in April 30, 1848, to serve during the war with Mexico ; was forwarded May 5, and joined his company near Matamoras, Mexico, May 26, 1848, and he remained with said company until after July 31, 1848, and was mustered out November 7, 1848. It is Held: That he actually served sixty days in Mexico and en route thereto. Service — Mexican war. (Elizabeth Young, widow, 9 P. D., 44.) The period of time included in the term " en route thereto " in the act of January 29, 1887, commences at the date of soldier's enlistment, w4ien his service in the war with Mexico conforms in other respects with the requirements of the terms of said act, and where the soldier is not responsible or chargeable w^ith delay in finally reaching Mexico, the coasts or frontier thereof. Service — Mexican war — Gilpin'' s battalion. (Martineau Winters, widow, 9 P. D., 108.) 1. Under report of the War Department, of date August 11, 1897, the organization known as Gilpin's battalion Missouri Vol- unteers has service title to pension under act of January 29, 1887, and therefore the widow's title follows. 2. Departmental decision of August 29, 1896, in the case of Anton Brunz (8 P. D., 344), having been rendered under mis- apprehension of facts, is recalled and annulled. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 471 Service — Mexican war. (Mary E. Powers, widow, 9 P. D., 3G9.) To convey title to pension under the act of January 29, 1887, it must be shown that the soldier's military service was asso- ciated with the war with Mexico. Service — Act January 29^ 1887 — Mexican war. (Lany Bouday, widow, 10 P. D., 139.) A soldier who enlisted in the Regular Army April 7, 1848, and was assigned to a battery which left Fort Columbus, N. Y., for Vera Cruz, Mexico, May 11, 1848, where he arrived May 31, 1848, one day after the termination of the war, and was ordered from Vera Cruz to New Orleans June 4, 1848, where he arrived June 17, 1848, and thence to Governors Island, N. Y., July 15, 1848, did not actually serve sixty days in Mexico, or on the coasts or frontier thereof, or en route thereto, and his widow is not entitled to a pension under the act of January 29, 1887. Case distinguished from that of Elizabeth Young (9 P. D., 44). Service in Mexican war — Act January 29, 1887. (Mary F. Mor- rison, widow, 10 P. D., 425.) It appearing from the official record of the military service of the deceased soldier during the Mexican war that he was not in the military service of the United States for sixty days during said war, and did not serve for sixty days with the Army of the United States in Mexico, or on the coasts or frontier thereof, or en route thereto during said war, this appellant has no title to pension as his widow under the provisions of the act of Jan- uary 29, 1887. Service — Mexican war. (Meta Thornton, widow, 11 P. D., 21.) It appearing from the official record of the military service of the deceased soldier during the Mexican war, and from the tes- timony on file in this case, that the soldier was duly enlisted for service in the war with Mexico as a recruit for a regiment then on duty in Mexico, and that he served for a term of more than sixty days under orders and " en route " to the seat of war to join his command, such service fulfilled the conditions of pen- sionable title required by the provisions of the act of January 29, 1887, and entitles his widow to pension thereunder. Service — Mexican war — Act January 29, 1900. (Matilda I. Ken- nedy, widow, 11 P. D., 110.) It appearing from the evidence that the deceased sailor did not serve for sixty days with the Navy of the United States in Mexico, or on the coasts or frontier thereof, or en route thereto in the war with that nation, this appellant is not entitled to pen- sion as his widow under the provisions of the act of January 29, 1887. 472 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Service — War with Mexico — Act January 29^ 1887. (Alfred Wil- liams, 11 P. D., 103.) This soldier enlisted in the Regular Arm}^ of the United States on April 22, 1848, less than sixty days prior to the termination of the war with Mexico, on May 30, 1848. Consequently his service during said war did not fulfill the requirements of the act of January 29, 1887, and he is not entitled to pension thereunder. Service — Mexican war — Act January 29, J 887. (Thomas McGin- niss, 11 P. D., 218.) The mere fact that claimant served as a sailor during the war with Mexico is not enough to entitle him to a pension under the act of January 29, 1887, but he must have served sixty days in Mexico, on the coasts or frontier thereof, or en route thereto, or actually engaged in battle, or been personally named by a resolution of Congress for specific service rendered therein. Service — War with Mexico — Teamster — Act of January 29, 1887 — Evidence. (Allen J. Patrick, 14 P. D., 357.) There is no evidence, aside from the claimant's statements, that he rendered any service as an enlisted man in the Army of the United States during the war with Mexico. His service was as a teamster in the Quartermaster's Department, which is not a pen- sionable service under the act of January 29, 1887. Service — Mexican war — Dropping — Restoration — Act of January 29, 1887— Act of January 5, 1893. (John R. Owen, 15 P. D., 158.) The records of the War Department show that this soldier's service was less than sixty days during the war with Mexico, and that neither he nor his regiment was ever in Mexico, or on the coasts or frontier thereof, or en route thereto. He was erro- neously pensioned, and is not entitled to restoration. Service — War with Mexico — Act of January 29, 1887. (George W. Hale, 15 P. D., 544.) Appellant enlisted for service in the United States Army dur- ing the war with Mexico and was assigned to a company then stationed at Fort Scott, Mo., where he remained with said com- pany until the close of said war. Held: That he did not serve for sixty days in the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en route thereto, as contemplated by the act of Jan- uary 29, 1887. 5. In War of the Rebellion. Service — War of the rebellion — Act June 27, 1890'. (Charles E. Shinguin, 9 P. D., 119.) 1. Pensioner's service, extending from December 5, 1805, to PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 473 December 5, 1868, is not shown to have had any connection with the war of the rebellion, and he can not, therefore, be held to have served in or during said war, and is not pensionable under the second section of said act. The dropping of his name from the rolls was proper. 2. This holding is in accordance wdth the decisions in the cases of Barleyoung and Edward Farrell et al. (7 P. D., 453 and 532), which are indorsed as being sustained by the law. Service — War of the rehellion. (Ida E. Filler, widow, 9 P. D., 12G.) Soldier's service for ninety days or more in the Eegular Army subsequent to November 23, 1865, under an enlistment on that date, is not service for ninety days in the war of the rebellion as contemplated in the act of June 27, 1890. (Cases of Barleyoung and Farrell, 7 P. D., 453 and 532, cited.) Service— Act June 27, 1890. (Henry Boedeker, 9 P. D., 207.) Soldier enlisted in the Regular Army December 9, 1865, and was discharged December 9, 1868. He was stationed at Harts Island, New York Harbor, from December 14, 1865, to April, 1866, and at Camp Wright, near Galveston, Tex., from April, 1866, to May, 1866, and at Richmond, Tex., from May, 1866, to August 20, 1866. Held: That his enlistment and service were not in or for the " war of the rebellion " within the meaning of the act of June 27, 1890. (See Edward Farrell et al., 7 P. D., 532; John Barle- young, 7 P. D., 453; Jeremiah Butler, 7 P. D., 214.) 6. In Beaty's Independent Scouts. Service — Special act — Act of June 27, 1890. (James Threet, 9 P. D.,297.) The members of Captain Beaty's Company of Independent Scouts, never ha^dng been legally mustered into the United States service, are not pensionable under the act of June 27, 1890, notwithstanding the act of July 14, 1870, recognizing said or- ganization as a part of the military force of the United States, and granting them pay and pension on making proof of actual service. Service — Act of June 27, 1890 — Beat\fs Independent Scouts. (Russell Stevens, 11 P. D., 141.) The act of July 14, 1870, for the relief of Captain Beaty's Company of Independent Scouts was manifestly passed to enable deserving members thereof to obtain the benefit of pension law^s then in force for disabilities incurred in the service and line of duty, and its scope can not be broadened to include the essentially different conditions of title to pension contemplated by the act 474 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. of June 27, 1890, and claimant never having been legally mus- tered into the United States service and honorably discharged therefrom is not pensionable under said last-mentioned act. (Citing case of James Threet, 9 P. D., 297.) 7. Civilian Employees. Seroice — Civilian employees. (E. S. Leonard, 9 P. D., 194.) Appellant claims pension for disability alleged to have been contracted while performing service as contract surgeon in con- nection with the recruiting service of the Twenty-seventh Michi- gan Volunteers. Held : That as his service was as a resident private physician, and not rendered with any military force in the field, in transitu, nor in hospital, it was not such service as entitles him to pension under the fourth subdivision of section 4693 of the Revised Statutes. Service — Drafted man — Civilian employee. (Basil T. Ridgeway, 9 P. D., 300.) It appearing that this appellant was drafted and accepted but not held to military service under said draft, and detailed and employed as a mechanic in the Washington Navy- Yard at regu- lar wages during the w^hole time of his service, he is held by the authorities of the War Department not to have been in the mili- tary service of the United States, and not entitled to recognition as a soldier for any purpose, and is therefore not entitled to pension under any existing law. Service — Civilian employees — Act of June 27 .^ 1890 — Pilot. (Anna M. Whalen, widow, 9 P. D., 346.) The widow of a pilot is not pensionable under the act of June 27, 1890, as he was not an officer or an enlisted man in the Army , or Navy of the United States. (Susannah, widow of Francis Mackey, 8 P. D., 535.) Service — Civilian employees — Act of January 29^ 1887. (Henry Barlow, 9 P. D., 347.) The record of claimant's grant of bounty-land w^arrant shows he was a civil employee merely, and not an enlisted man. Claim for pension was, therefore, properly rejected. Service — Civilian employees — Pilot. (William B. Taylor, 9 P. D., 360.) A pilot is not an officer or enlisted man in the Army or Navy, and he is not entitled to pension under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Civilian employee — Act June 27^ 1890. (John Laughlin, 9 P. D., 466.) 1. The words " all persons " in section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, are limited by the context to those persons who have been PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 476 " honorably discharged " from " the luilitary or naval service of the United States during the war of the rebellion," and do not include a person who served in the capacity of a civilian em- ployee or as a nonenlisted person. 2. The record evidence in this case shows that the claimant was a civilian employee and nonenlisted person of the Quarter- master's Department. Service — Civilian employees — Contract surgeons. (Harvey E. Bowles, 10 P. D., 183.) An acting assistant or contract surgeon is not pensionable under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Enlistment — Civilian employees — Desertion. (John S. Williams, 10 P. D.,1G9.) 1. The legal status of a man who becomes a voluntary substi- tute for a soldier, and serves and is discharged in the name of the soldier, is that of a civilian, as he was never enlisted or mustered into the military service of the United States. (Christian, alias Ernest Ulrich, 4 P. D., 411; Henry Bell, 5 P. D., 19G; Mary Brady, 9 P. D., 305.) 2. A civilian who served with the Army or Navy has no pen- sionable status under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. (John Laughlin, 9 P. D., 460.) 3. The time lost by desertion, where the deserter returned to his organization and was pardoned under the President's proc- lamation of March 11, 18G5 (13 Stat. L., 752), is excluded in estimating the length of service required under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. 4. The evidence in this case shows that claimant is entitled to a credit of but one month and six days' service in the late war of the rebellion, under the act of June 27, 1890, which requires ninety days' service to entitle a soldier to a pension. Service — Civilian employee — Pilot. (John H. Meeker, 10 P. D., 182.) 1. Service as pilot does not bring a claimant within the class of persons entitled to pension under the provisions of section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. 2. The words " all persons " in said section are limited by the context to those persons " who served ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the late war of the rebellion and who have been honorably discharged therefrom," and do not include a person who served in the capacity of a civilian employee or nonenlisted person. 476 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. (See cases of Angelina Coney, 7 P. D., 390; Anna M. Whalan, 9 P. D., 346 ; John Laughlin, ibid., 466 ; Henry N. Haynie, ibid., 304.) Service- Masters and mates — Civilian eTnployees — Western gun- boat flotilla— Act of June 27, 1890. (Richard H. Cutter, 15 P. D., 366.) Claimant was not an enlisted man or officer in the military or naval service of the United States, and is therefore not pension- able under the provisions of section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. 8. Drafted Men and Substitutes. Service — Drafted man and substitute, (Wright Sims, 9 P. D., 158.) Claimant, a drafted man who had furnished a substitute who was examined and accepted into the service by a board of en- rollment October 29, 1864, was injured in a railroad accident October 31, 1864, and contends that at the time of his injury he was acting under military orders to proceed from his home, where he had been permitted to go, to Lafayette, Ind., and was there- fore in the line of duty in the service. Held : That as he had furnished a substitute who had been ac- cepted into the service in his stead two days prior to said accident claimant was no longer in the service of the United States, but when injured was a civilian. Service — Drafted man and substitute — Discharge, (Nancy Rath- ton, widow, 9 P. D., 162.) Soldier enlisted October 15, 1864; was accepted by the board of enrollment of the Eighth Congressional district of Indiana on the same day as a substitute. He was examined by a board of inspectors November 7, 1864, and rejected. He was fur- loughed to await discharge and was discharged April 1, 1865, on a surgeon's certificate because of " deficient amplitude and ex- pansive mobility of chest; said disqualification existed at date of enlistment." He was never assigned to any military organi- zation, nor ordered on detached service, nor is it shown that he ever performed any active military service. Held: That soldier did not serve ninety days in the war of the rebellion, or in the Army of the United States, within the mean- ing of sections 2 and 3 of the act of June 27, 1890. (See case of Albert K. Ransom, 5 P. D., 183.) Service — Drafted man— Discharge. (Obediah P. Hankinson, 9 P. D., 292.) The official military record of this appellant's service during the war of the rebellion shows that he did not render any pen- sionable service whatever in the Army of the United States dur- ing said war. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 477 Service — Substitute — E7ilistme7it. (Mary Brady, widow, 9 P. D., 305.) It appearing from the evidence that the deceased husband of this appellant served in the above-named organization as a sub- stitute for and under the name of one Thomas F. Jessup, who had been drafted into the service, and by a private arrangement with Jessup took his place in the ranks and answered to his name, but was not sworn in, nor mustered into the military service, he was not in the militar}^ service of the United States, his service was not a pensionable service, and would not entitle his widow to pension under any existing law. (Christian, alias Ernest Ulrich, 4 P. D., 411.) Service — Drafted man and substitute — Discharge — Act of June 27^ 1890. (William H. Veach, 12 P. D., 273.) Appellant was enrolled and accepted as a substitute September 27, 1864, rejected by board of medical inspectors November 17, 1864, ordered by Major-General Hooker to be discharged No- vember 28, 1864, and was discharged March 15, 1865, on account of disability existing at time of enrollment. Held: 1. That the status of appellant from the time of his acceptance by the board of enrollment, September 27, 1864, to the time of his discharge, March 15, 1865, for disability existing at the time of enlistment, was that of a soldier accepted into the service of the United States, but not assigned to duty as such for the reason that he w^as physically disqualified to perform military service from causes existing at the time he was accepted. 2. That as appellant was not assigned to any military organiza- tion nor to military duty, he did not render to the United States any military service, and hence did not serve for ninety days in the military or naval service of the United States, as contem- plated by the act of June 27, 1890, and is not pensionable under section 2 of said act. Service — Drafted man — Evidence — Act of June 27^ 1890. (Cathe- rine Parcell, widow, 14 P. D., 63.) It appearing from a report from the Auditor of the Treasury for the War Department, filed since this case was previously decided, that claimant's husband was drafted June 8, 1864, failed to report, was arrested September 12, 1864, and examined Octo- ber 10, 1864, and rejected, it is held that he did not serve ninety days within the meaning of the act of June 27, 1890. The former decision in this case, reported in 13 P. D., 450, based on the evidence then in the case (the Chief of the Kecord and Pension Office having declined to furnish the above facts), is overruled. 478 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Service — Drafted man — Commencement of service — Act of June 27, 1890. (Charles A. Eaton, 15 P. D., 232.) So far as service is concerned under the act of June 27, 1890, in the case of an accepted drafted man, it is to be deemed to have commenced from the date his name was drawn in the draft. 9. In Home Guards. Service — Home guards. (Abner Robinson, 9 P. D., 362.) Hall's company. West Virginia Home Guards, to which this appellant belonged, and in which he alleges his military service was rendered during the war of the rebellion, was a State militia organization that was never in the military service of the United States, and the officers and enlisted men thereof are not pension- able under any existing law. 10. In the Militia. . Service— Militia— Act of June 27, 1890. (William Bice, 9 P. D., 21.) 1. Pennsylvania Emergency Militia, while serving in the Army of the United States, under command of United States officers, in response to the call of the President, were a part of that Army while so serving, and are, for that time and as regards the character of the service, brought within the scope of the first subdivision of section 4693, Revised Statutes, and the act of June 27, 1890, for pensionable purposes, other conditions of those laws having been met. 2. The peculiar conditions under which said militia were recognized as a part of the Army, the manner in which received into and released from the service of the United States, obviated the necessity of enlistment and discharge in the usual manner, the records of the State in that respect being taken as a substitute for the records of the AVar Department, and the period of actual service being counted as if rendered under enlistment by United States officers. 3. Two terms of service, each less than ninety days, may be added together to make the required period under said act of June 27, 1890. Service — Militia. (James W. Anderson, 9 P. D., 422.) A State militiaman, whose organization was not called into the United States service by the President, is pensionable only under subdivision three of section 4693, Revised Statutes, where his claim was prosecuted to a successful issue prior to July 4, 1874, notwithstanding he performed duty under the commander of the Department of Kansas. Service— Militia. (Walter Morris, 9 P. D., 462.) The fact that the organization to which the claimant belonged was not regularly mustered into the service of the United States PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 479 does not debar him from pension for disability incurred in the line of duty, it appearing that said organization was called into service by the authority of the President, turned over to the United States officers, and by them ordered outside the State for duty, and that the members were paid by the General Gov- ernment at the time of muster out. Service — Missouri Militia — Act June ^7, 1890. (Martha Patter- son, widow, 10 P. D., 8.) Claimant's husband was a member of the Missouri Six Months' Militia, which organization was never in the United States service, and she has, therefore, no pensionable status under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Missouri Militia. (Frederick Brennecke, 10 P. D., 19.) The organization in which the claimant served was a purely State organization, which does not come within the terms of the joint resolution approved February 15, 1895, and w^hose members are not entitled to pension under either the act of June 27, 1890, or section 4722 of the Revised Statutes. Service — Missouri Militia — Hawkins Taylor Commission, (Fran- cis M. Davis, 10 P. D., 270.) The report of the Hawkins Taylor commission shows an actual military service rendered to the United States by the claimant of only forty-five days. The report from the adjutant-general of Missouri, showing an interval of one hundred and two days between date of enroll- ment and date of disbandment of company is not competent evidence as to the " actual military service rendered the United States," and no other service can be taken into account in con- sidering claims to pension under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Militia. (Instructions, 11 P. D., 12.) The decisions of the Department in the cases of Randolph M. Manley (5 P. D., 295), William Bice (9 P. D., 21), Walter Mor- ris (9 P. D., 462), and all similar cases, which recognize certain militiamen as having been in the service of the United States, should continue to be accepted by the Bureau of Pensions as precedents under which to adjudicate pension claims of the class therein described. (See 20 Op. Atty. Genl., 322.) Service — Missouri Militia — Act of June ^7, 1890. (John P. Les- lie, 12 P. D., 367.) The State militia organizations in which the service of this appellant during the war of the rebellion was rendered were in the service of the State of Missouri and were never in the mili- tary service of the United States, and military service rendered therein confers no title to pension under the provisions of the second section of the act of June 27, 1890. 480 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Service — Militia — Section Jf693 of the Revised Statutes, (Daniel B. Tyler, 12 P. D., 385.) Soldier enlisted for three months on April 10, 1861, in the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteers, and was injured while serving in said organization in the riot in the city of Baltimore on April 19, 1861, being left in said city by his officei*s. He w^as never mustered into or out of said service, and the War Department declines to issue a discharge in his case. Held: He was a member during the period involved of the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteers, an organization which Avas a component part of the Army of the United States, said organi- zation having been called into the service of the Federal Army by orders of the President, lawfully issued. He was discharged by operation of law from said service when his term of engagement ceased, or when the war of the rebellion ended. He has a pensionable status as a militiaman under the first subdivision of section 4693, Revised Statutes. (U. S. v. North, 112 U. S., 510, and Randolph M. Manley, 5 P. D., 295, and cases therein cited.) Service — Militia — Muster. (Sarah A. Fowler, widow, 12 P. D., 521.) Held: That the soldier's service in the Pennsylvania Emer- gency Militia gives a pensionable status, and that the prior soundness of the soldier, the incurrence of the disability alleged in service, its existence at discharge and continuance until death are sufficiently shown to sustain his claim for pension. The said disability is also shown to have been a large contributing factor in the death cause of the soldier, the preponderance of the evidence tending to show that it was the direct and sole cause of death, and the widow is entitled to a pension. 11. On Revenue Cutters. Service — Revenue cutter — Mexican war. (William F. Rogers, 9 P. D., 96.) Under the act of March 2, 1799 (section 2757, Revised Stat- utes) , the revenue cutter Forward was embraced within and con- stituted a part of the naval establishment of the United States for more than sixty days in the w^ar with Mexico, and claimant, being an officer on said revenue cutter and serving with the Navy of the United States in Mexico, or on the coasts thereof, during the war with that nation for more than sixty days, and having engaged in battle in said war, he has title to pension under act of January 29, 1887. Service — Revenue cutters — Act June 27^ 1890. (William B. Wat- son, 9 P. D., 182.) 1. A service of ninety days or more during the war of the PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 481 rebellion in actual cooperation with the Navy under the orders of the President, and an honorable discharge from such service is sufficient to give the officers and seamen of the United States Revenue-Marine Service a pensionable status under the provi- sions of section 2, act of June 27, 1890 (Eoger's appeal, 9 P. D., 96). 2. The Departmental ruling in Oliver's appeal (7 P. D., 597) overruled and set aside, and the decision in Schaffer's appeal (6 P, D., 137) reaffirmed, Service — Revenue cutters — Act June 27\ 1890. (William B. Wat- son, 9 P. D., 395.) It appearing from the official records and from the testimony that the United States revenue cutter Tiger ^ upon which this appellant served, was, during the time of his service thereon, under orders by the President to cooperate with the Navy, and was stationed on Chesapeake Bay and waters tributary thereto, in actuaL and iictive cooperation with the naval forces of the United States, guarding the approaches to the national capital and " arresting rebel depredations on American commerce and transportation " in those waters, his service on said cutter under such circumstances for ninety days or more, and an honorable discharge from such service, are sufficient to meet the require- ments of section 2, act of June 27, 1890, and give him a pension- able status thereunder if other pensionable conditions required by said section are shown to exist. Service — Revenue cutters — Cooperation with the Navy. (Daniel M. Means, 10 P. D., 401.) The claimant served on board the revenue cutter Joe Lane^ which was under orders of the President to cooperate with the Navy, but it does not appear that said vessel was ever in actual cooperation therew^ith. 12. As Pilot. Service— Pilot— Act June 27, 1890. (Henry N. Haynie, 9 P. D., 304.) Service as a pilot does not entitle to pension under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890. (Citing Susannah, widow of Francis Mackey, 8 P. D., 535, and William P. Gordon, unpublished. 13. Unassigned Recruit. Service — Unassig7ied recruit — Act June 27, 1890 — Dropping from the rolls. (James T. Veley, 9 P. D., 15.) Soldier was enrolled as a substitute November 1, 1864 ; received at Indiana rendezvous November 3, 1864; examined by a board of inspectors and rejected by reason of extreme youth on Novem- 13070— OG 31 482 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ber 7, 1864, and was furloughed to await discharge on the same day. The order for discharge was finall}^ approved by the general commanding the department November 30, 1864, but the certificate for discharge was dated March 9, 1865. Held: That he was not in the service of the United States exceeding thirty days, and his name was properly dropped from the rolls under the act of June 27, 1890. 14. Not Service in War. Service — Mexican war, (Theresa Bonnaveau, widow, 9 P. D., 507.) It is shown by the official military records of the War Depart- ment that the military service of the deceased soldier terminated prior to the commencement of the Mexican war. 15. Act March 25, 1862. Service— Act March 25, 1862. (Imre Radwich, 10 P. D., 58.) This officer was appointed a captain in Engineer Corps of United States Volunteers. He served more than ninety days in that capacity during the war of the rebellion, received payment therefor, and was honorably discharged from said service. Held: That he comes within the provisions of the act of June 27, 1890, and is entitled to pension thereunder. 16. Act June 27, 1890. Service— Act June 27, 1890. (Charles McQuay, 10 P. D., 18.) . Claimant's enlistment being on January 9, 1866, it is incum- bent upon him to prove, before he can be accorded a status under the act of June 27, 1890, that his service w^as in aiding the sup- pression of the forces of the Confederate army or navy. (Fol- lowing the holdings in the cases of John Barleyoung, 7 P. D., 453, and Edward Farrell et al., 7 P. D., 532.) Service— Act of June 21, 1890. (John G. Mulick, 12 P. D., 186.) Appellant enlisted April 6, 1865, and served as landsman in the United States Navy until April 5, 1868, wdien he was honorably discharged, and under the circumstances in this case he is re- garded as having served in the United States Navy for a period of ninety days during the war of the rebellion. Service — Desertion — Act of June 27, 1890. (Henry Denny, 12 P. D., 226.) The claimant did not serve ninety days during the war of the rebellion. The Government will not credit time spent in desertion in es- timating length of service under the act of June 27, 1890. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 483 Service— Act June 27, 1890— Discharge. (Edgar G. Smith, 12 P. D., 466.) Claimant was drafted on October 8, 1864, and rejected on De- cember 12 next thereafter. He was furloughed to await dis- charge on December 19, 1864, and finally discharged on April 4, 1865. The certificate w^as afterwards amended so as to take eifect from December 19, 1864, by reason of his being a rejected recruit. He was never assigned to any organization or placed on military duty. Held: That under these facts he is not pensionable under the act of June 27, 1890, not having served for ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States. 17. Muster Out to Receive Commission. Service — Muster out to accept new commission. (Helen A. M. Taylor, widow, 10 P. D., 188.) The claimant's husband having been discharged from the service as surgeon of the Second Ohio Cavalry, for the purpose of enabling him to accept an appointment from the governor of Ohio as surgeon of the Eighty-ninth Ohio Infantry, and having been drowned while on his way to join the latter regiment and before being mustered in, it is held that he was not in the mili- tary service of the United States at the time of his death and that his widow is not entitled to pension under existing laws. 18. As Substitute. Service — Act June '27, 1890 — Rejected recruit. (John S. Robin- son, 11 P. D., 390.) Claimant was enlisted as a substitute in the service of the United States and was carried on the rolls as such for a period of more than ninety days, when he was discharged as rejected for disability by a board of inspection. He was not assigned to any company, and he did not serve in the military service in the sense contemplated by the act of June 27, 1890, and is not en- titled to pension. (See cases of Rathton, 9 P. D., 162, and Ran- som, 5 P D., 183.) Service — Civilians — Substitute. (Fred Pain, alias Henry Fore- man, 12 P. D., 351.) The legal status of a man who becomes a voluntary substitute for a soldier and serves and is discharged in the name of the sol- dier is that of a civilian, he having never enlisted or been mus- tered into the military service of the United States. (John S. Williams, 10 P. D., 169.) A civilian who served in the Army or Navy has no pensionable status under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, or May 9, 1900. (John Laughlin, 9 P. D., 466.) 484 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. The words " all persons " in said section 2 are limited by the context to those persons " who served ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States," and do not in- clude a person who served in the capacit}^ of a civilian or non- enlisted person. (John H. Meeker, 10 P. D., 182.) 19. Enrollment and Muster as Wagon Master. Service — Wago7i master — Cluster. (Margaret Griffin, widow, 11 P. D., 282.) It appearing from the official record in the War Department of the deceased soldier's military service that he was duly en- listed and mustered into the military service of the United States, and subsequently honorably discharged therefrom, it is immaterial whether he was enlisted and served as a " wagon master " or not ; he was an enlisted man in the military service of the United States, and as such occupied a pensionable status under the law. The rejection of the appellant's claims for pen- sion as the widow of the soldier upon the ground that he had rendered no service in the military or naval service of the United States was therefore erroneous, and is reversed. . 20. Enlistment. Service — Enlistment — Muster — Section 4693^ Revised Statutes, and act June 27, 1890. (Jefferson M. Human, 12 P. D., 500.) A soldier may be pensionable for disability incurred prior to the date of his muster into the service of the United States, muster in not being an essential to a pensionable status. (Sec. 4693, E. S.) The Department declines to alter or modify the prevailing practice under the act of June 27, 1890, so far as the dates of enlistment and muster in affect the length of service in a claim under said act. Service — Enlistment — Muster — Recruit. (Samuel Whiteherse, 13 P. D., 41.) Claimant, while receiving a pension of $2 per month under the general law, was dropped from the rolls February 18, 1895, on the ground that the records of the War Department fail to show he was ever in the service of the United States. The records of the War Department show he was discharged the service as an unassigned recruit of the Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry upon a certificate of disability for dis- charge from the General Hospital at Camp Denison, Ohio, which recited, among other things, that he was enlisted in the service to serve for three years, the certificate being in due form. They also show that he received pay upon his final statement at dis- charge for a period of two months and seventeen days. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 485 Held: That the records of the War Department sufficiently show claimant was in the military service of the United States, has a pensionable status, and is entitled to be restored to the rolls. Service — Enlistment — Muster — Discharge — Record. ( Graham Thorn, 14 P. D., 249.) Claimant was pensioned under the act of June 27, 1890, but his name was dropped from the roll on November 9, 1901, on the ground that he was a rejected recruit and, therefore, not in the United States service as an enlisted man. Restoration to the rolls was refused on the ground that the records of the War Department show that claimant was not in the service of the United States. The records and the evidence taken on special examination show that he was in the service of the United States more than ninety days, having been enlisted June 13, 1862, and discharged to date from December 18, 1862. 21. Section 4701, Revised Statutes, and Act June 27, 1890. Service — Section Jf701 of the Revised Statutes and act of June 27, 1890 — Discharge — Dishandment. (Adam Kohler, 12 P. D.,407.) Soldier enlisted April 3, 1865, and was honorably discharged with his company, by reason of expiration of service, June 25, 1865, but said organization to which he belonged was not dis- banded until July 14, 1865. Held: That under the provisions of section 4701 of the Re- vised Statutes the period of his pensionable service was extended to July 14, 1865, and the rejection of his invalid claim under the act of June 27, 1890, on the ground that he did not serve ninety days in the United States service, was error. 22. Length of. Service., length of — Travel pay. (Philip E. Ryan, 9 P. D., 289.) From date of enrollment to discharge soldier . served eighty- five days. He claims that his term of service should be held also to include the time required to go from place of discharge to place of enlistment. This claim is untenable. Service — Discharge — Act of June 27., 1890. (Martin Collins, 11 P. D., 206.) While soldier's discharge and a report from the War Depart- ment show that he served from January 27 to April 14, 1864, other records show him present with his company, assigned to light duty, in " camp sick," and discharged May 21, 1864, it is held that he was actually in the military service from enlistment to May 21, 1864, and therefore in the military service for ninet}^ days during the late war of the rebellion. 486 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. Service— Act June 27, 1890— Absence, (John R. Trout, 11 P. D., 435.) As the claimant was with his command only a week or two and then went home and remained there until the company was about to be mustered out, his place in the ranks being in the meantime taken by another man who answered to his name at roll call, it not being shown that he received a sick furlough as alleged, Held, That he did not serve ninety days within the meaning of the act of June 27, 1890, and was not entitled to pension thereunder. Service — Evidence — Record — Act of June 27, 1890. (Kate D. Smith, widow, 13 P. D., 230.) 1. The discharge certificate of claimant's husband shows ninety- two days' service ; the records of the War Department show only eighty-five days' service. To entitle a widow to a pension under the provisions of the third section of the act of June 27, 1890, it must be show^n that the soldier served at least ninety days in the late war of the rebellion. 2. In determining the length of service of a soldier the record as reported by the War Department is generally accepted as con- clusive. 3. Evidence tending to show^ that the records are erroneous, and requests that they be altered or amended, can not be con- sidered by this Department, but must be submitted to the AVar Department. 4. According to the records in this case the soldier did not serve ninety days in the late war of the rebellion, and therefore his widow is not entitled to a pension under the existing laws. Service — Act June 27, 1890 — Discharge — Record. (Helen Ran- dall, widow, 13 P. D., 237.) Soldier was enrolled December 5, 1863, w^as reported present to February 29, 1864, from which time to the time of his dis- charge, October 3, 1864, he was in hospital or on furlough. He was discharged on account of general debility and worthlessness, the certificate of discharge containing the f ollow^ing : " Improper enlistment." It is held that soldier rendered more than ninety days' service during the war of the rebellion. Service — Act June 27, 1890 — Absence. (Mary Dasher, widow, 14 P. D., 257.) 1. Where various reports of the War Department as to a sol- dier's service are conflicting or incomplete, a construction un- favorable to a claimant should not be placed upon such reports if, PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 487 with an equal show of reason, they are susceptible of a construc- tion favorable to claimant's interests. 2. In determining the length and character of service rendered, within the meaning of the act of June 27, 1890, absence with leave should not be deducted unless it appears that the purpose of such leave was incompatible with the rendition of actual service. 3. Where the record shows absence with leave and the evidence does not indicate that during that period soldier was attending to his private business or devoting the time to his personal pleasure, the presumption attaches that the leave was granted for purposes consistent with the rendering of actual service within the mean- ing of the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Length of service — Act June ^7, 1890. (Isaac D. Gregg, 15P. D., 340.) The claimant's period of actual service is shown to have been only one month and nineteen days, though nearly nine months elapsed between the date of his enlistment and the date of his discharge. The remainder of the time he was at home attending to his private business. Held: That he has not a pensionable status under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Length of service — Travel pay. (Susan F. Alsup, alias Bean, widow, 14 P. D., 494.) Travel pay allowed the soldier to and from the point of ren- dezvous was not pay for actual military service, but was pay for time and expenses allowed recruits and discharged soldiers, and precludes their being considered as in actual military service during the time they were actually entitled to receive it. Service — Drafted man — Length of service — Act of June 27., 1890 — Commencement of service — Desertion. (Benjamin R. Fish, 15 P. D., 548.) Soldier was drafted on November 14, 1864, and ordered to report at draft rendezvous. This he failed to do, and was ar- rested on February 14, 1865. He was held to service on March 5, 1865, assigned to the Thirty-third Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and honorably discharged on May 10, 1865. Held: Soldier's service, although he failed to report at ren- dezvous and was a deserter until February 14, 1865, if he was actually accepted, was deemed to have commenced from the date of the drawing of his name in the draft, but he would not be entitled to any credit for time spent in desertion in estimating the length of his service under the act of June 27, 1890. 488 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 23. Mississippi Marine Brigade. Service — Civilian employees — Mississippi Marine Brigade — Act June 27, 1890. (George B. Durnell, 13 P. D., 226.) The service of this appellant during the war of the rebellion as an engineer in the Mississippi Marine Brigade was that of a civilian employee of the Quartermaster's Department of the Army, and not that of an officer or enlisted man in the military or naval service of the United States, and was not a pensionable service under the provisions of the second section of the act of June 27, 1890. 24. Termination of War of the Rebellion. Service — Act of June 27, 1890 — Termination of the war of the rebellion. (Betty ¥. Nichols, widow, 13 P. D., 330.) The soldier having enlisted in a loyal State after enlistments for the war of the rebellion had been ordered discontinued, his service was presumptively not pensionable service under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — Termination of war of the rehellion. (Annie Taylor, widow, 14 P. D., 71.) It being shown that this soldier was accepted into the volun- teer service in May, 1865, as under the authority of the act of Congress of July 17, 1862, " An act to suppress insurrection, etc., * * * " and that his enlistment was in Georgia, a State wherein the war of the rebellion yet, according to the President's procla- mation of April 2, 1866, subsisted, such enlistment is established as one for the purposes of said war, and his service under it was presumptively war service and is pensionable service under the act of June 27, 1890. This particular presumption as to the character and purpose of his service outweighs the general presumption arising from the fact of the practical cessation of hostilities in July, 1865; and his service after July, 1865, should be presumed to have been of the same character and for the same purpose as that before that date, such service being shown to have been rendered in said State of Georgia, wherein, according to said proclamation, said war did not end until the date of said proclamation. Service — A^t June 27, 1890 — T ernfiination of war of the rebellion, (Mariah Smith, widow, 14 P. D., 346.) Soldier enlisted April 14, 1865, and served in the State of Texas, where the rebellion had not been suppressed, and it is presumed that his service was rendered during the war of the rebellion. His widow is therefore entitled to pension under the act of June 27, 1890. PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 489 Service — Colored troops — Act June 27^ 1890 — Preemption — Length of service. (Isaac Walker, 15 P. D., 198.) The service of colored troops organized and accepted under sec- tion 11 of the act of July IT, 1862, as United States soldiers is presumptively pensionable service under the act of June 27, 1890, notwithstanding the enlistment and service of such was subsequent to April 13, 1865, and in a loj^al State ; this rule being an exception to the general rule, stated in the case of Edward Farrell (7 P. D., 532), as to enlistments in loyal States after April 13, 1865, case of Betty F. Nichols (13 P. D., 330), over- ruled. Service — Colored troops — War of the rebellion. (William Wil- liams, 15 P. D., 281.) The claimant's enlistment and service are shown to have been under the act of July 17, 1862, section 11 authorizing the em- ployment of colored troops " for the suppression of the rebellion," and are, consequently, to be presumed to have been for the pur- pose of suppressing such rebellion, and such service is presump- tively pensionable service under the act of June 27, 1890. Service — War of the rebellion — Colored troops — Length of serv- ice—Act of June 27, 1890. (Squire Clark, 15 P. D., 294.) Claimant enlisted July 29, 1865, in a colored regiment which was mustered into the Upited States service July 15, 1865, and his entire service was rendered at Macon, Ga., where he was dis- charged January 15, 1866. The first official notice of the close of the war of the rebellion in the State of Georgia was the Presi- dent's proclamation of April 2, 1866. Held : That as soldier's regiment, the One hundred and thirty- seventh United States Colored Infantry, was one of the three regiments authorized to be mustered into the service by special authority of the Secretary of War of May 8, 1865, his enlist- ment was not subsequent to the close of the war of the rebellion for pensionable purposes. 25. Prior Service. Service — Record — Evidence — Prior service — Practice. (Margaret C. Steele, widow, 13 P. D., 288.) In the absence of d record in the War Department of a prior military service of the deceased soldier, the allegation by his widow that he had such prior service was immaterial, and the rejection of her claim for pension upon the ground of her in- ability to furnish evidence showing in what organization such alleged prior service was rendered was improper and erroneous. 490 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 26. Contract Surgeons — Act June 27, 1890. Service — Contract surgeons — Act June 27^ 1890. (Solomon F. Wehr, 14 P. D., 515.) Acting assistant or contract surgeons were not, during the war of the rebellion, officers or enlisted men in or any part of the Army, and are not pensionable under the act of June 27, 1890. 27. Desertion. Service — Desertion — Act June 27^ 1890. (George Johnson, 13 P. D.,46.) Appellant was arrested for desertion three days after his en- listment and was never assigned to any duty as a soldier there- after, and performed no military service. Held: That he did not serve ninety days in the military or naval service of the United States within the meaning of the second section of the act of June 27, 1890. 28. Evidence — Recprd. Service — Act of June 27^ 1890 — Evidence — Record. (Charles W. Parker, 14 P. D., 388.) The claimant having made due proof of the number of days, service required by section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, if he meets the other requirements of said act is entitled to a pension, notwithstanding the holding of the War Department that he is not regarded as having been in the military service of the United States. SHORT CERTIFICATE. See Practice : No. 18 (12 P. D., 254). SLAVES. See Dependent Parents: No. 4 (12 P. D., 131). See Legitimacy : Nos. 2, 3, 7 (11 P. D., 278, 294; 14 P. D., 474). See Marriage: Nos. 2 (h), 2 (ee) (14 P. D., 383; 12 P. D., 287) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 36, 75, 157, 254, 362, 441 ; 11 P. D., 167, 181, 443; 12 P. D., 159, 447 ; 13 P. D., 70, 129, 140, 173 ; 14 P. D., 156, 288, 383, 436, 491, 537; 15 P. D., 11, 30, 503). SLAVE MARRIAGES. See Legitimacy: Nos. 2, 3, 7 (11 P. D., 278, 294; 14 P. D., 474). See Marriage: No. 2 (h) (14 P. D., 383) ; No. 15 (10 P. D., 36, 75, 157, 254, 362, 441 ; 11 P. D., 167, 181, 443 ; 12 P. D., 159, 447 ; 13 P. D., 70, 129, 140, 173; 14 P. D., 156, 288, 383, 436, 491, 537; 15 P. D., 11, 30, 503). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 491 SOUTH CAROLINA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (ii) (15 P. D., 411, 540) ; No. 2 (bb) (15 P. D., 208) ; No. 15 (14 P. D., 537). See Tables of State Statutes for 14 and 15 P. D. SPECIAL ACT. References. See Accrued Pension: No. 8 (13 P. D., 181). See Commencement: No. 12 (12 P. D., 49; 13 P. D., 331). See Construction of Statutes: No. 2 (10 P. D., 99). See Double Pension : No. 1 (9 P. D., 420). See Helpless Minor: No. 4 (14 P. D., 331). See Honorable Discharge: No. 1 (14 P. D., 195). See Pathological Sequence: No. 22 (15 P. D., 249). See Service: No. 6 (9 P. D., 297). Index. 1. Commencement. 2. Construction. 1. Commencement. Special act — Commencement — Rank — Section Jf702^ Revised Stat- utes. (Corinne R. Strickland, widow, 11 P. D., 424.) The soldier having been declared by special act of Congress to be an officer in the military service of the United States, and given the right to prosecute a claim for pension under the gen- eral law, although he is not shown to have been mustered nor recognized by the War Department, and having been pensioned under the general law at total of rank for disability contracted in service, the status and privilege extend to the widow, and she is pensionable under the general law if the officer's death was the result of the disability for which he was pensioned, as provided by section 4702, Revised Statutes. 2. Construction. Special act — Construction — Act of July 25^ 1882. (Lizzie H. Hyndman, widow, 13 P. D., 95.) Appellant was pensioned as widow under section 3 of the act of June 27, 1890, at the rate of $8 per month and $2 additional for each of two minor children, when, April 23, 1900, a special act for her benefit was passed granting her a pension of $20 per month in lieu of the pension she was then receiving. Held: That said special act does not carry with it $2 per month additional for each of said minor children, as the $20 per month is in lieu of the pension she was formerly granted, and the m.inors were not provided for in said act. 492 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. SPECIAL EXAMINATION. See Attorneys : No. 6 (9 P. D., 471 ; 15 P. D., 163). See Disloyalty: No. 5 (11 P. D., 252). See Division of Pension : Nos. 8, 18 (15 P. D., 14; 14 P. D., 338). See Evidence: Nos. 1, 2 (9 P. D., 333; 13 P. D. 437). See Practice : Nos. 8, 26 (10 P. D., 390, 389; 14 P. D., 8). SPECIAL EXAMINERS. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 5 (13 P. D., 357; 14 P. D., 219). See Division of Pension: No. 15 (14 P. D., 150). SPECIAL EXAMINER'S CONDUCT. See Adulterous Cohabitation: No. 5 (13 P. D., 357; 14 P. D., 219). SPECIALIST. See Evidence: No. 17 (9 P. D., 73). SPECIFIC DISABILITY. See Amputation : No. 2 (15 P. D., 402). See Disability: Nos. 9, 10 (12 P. D., 477; 14 P. D., 182, 508). See Increase: Nos. 1, 9 (9 P. D., 54, 204). See Rate and Rating: No. 10 (14 P. D., 524). STARE DECISIS. See Res Judicata: Nos. 1, 3 (9 P. D., 218; 10 P. D., 249). SUBSTITUTION. See Attorneys: No. 1 (10 P. D., 143; 14 P. D., 186). SUBSTITUTES. See Service: Nos. 8, 18 (9 P. D., 158, 162, 305; 12 P. D., 273, 351). SUFFICIENCY. See Declarations: Nos. 5, 7 (10 P. D., 359; 11 P. D., 93; 12 P. D., 54; 14 P. D., 426). SUCCESSION. See Bounty Land: No. 4 (14 P. D., 415). SUFFICIENT AVERMENTS. See Declarations: No. 5, 7 (10 P. D., 359; 14 P. D., 426; 11 P. D. 93; 12 P. D., 54). SOLDIERS' HOME. See Division of Pension: No. 1 (15 P. D., 221) ; No. 10 (12 P. D, 237, 490; 15 P. D., 56, 132) ; No. 20 (15 P. D., 143). SUNSTROKE. See Pathological Sequence: No. 18 (14 P. D., 89). SUPPORT. See Disability: No. 8 (12 P. D., 319). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 493 SUPPLEMENTAL. See Declarations: No. 7 (11 P. D., 93; 12 P. D., 54). SURGEON'S CERTIFICATE. See Evidence: No. 7 (12 P. D., 264; 10 P. D., 319; 13 P. D., 84). SURGICAL OPERATION. See Death Cause: No. 5 (11 P. D., 106). SUSPENSION. See Fraud and Mistake: No. 4 (13 P. D., 428). SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT. See Division of Pension : No. 6 (12 P. D., 370). SOUTH DAKOTA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (jj). No case reported. SYPHILIS. See Vicious Habits : No. 2 (15 P. D., 427). TEAMSTER. See Line of Duty : No. 18 (9 P. D., 74). See Service: No. 4 (14 P. D., 357). TENNESSEE LAWS. See Legitimacy: No. 3 (11 P. D., 294). See Marriage: No. 2 (kk) (10 P. D., 328; 12 P. D., 468, 514) ; No. 15 (13 P. D., 140; 15 P. D., 30, 503). See Tables of State Statutes for 12, 13, and 15 P. D. TERMINATION OF PENSION. See Adulterous Cohabitation : No. 8 (15 P. D., 48). TERMINATION OF WAR OF THE REBELLION. See Discharge: No. 5 (14 P. D., 326). See Service : No. 24 (15 P. D., 198, 281, 294). TEST MEDICAL EXAMINATION. See Practice: No. 19 (13 P. D., 304). TEXAS LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (11) <15 P. D., 399) ; No. 3 (b) (12 P. D., 417) ; No. 7 (9 P. D., 209) ; No. 15 (13 P. D., 129; 14 P. D., 156). See Tables of State Statutes for 9 and 14 P. D. See also, 14 P. D., 157. 494 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. THIRD GRADE. See Appeals: No. 6 (13 P. D., 170). See Commencement: No. 3 (9 P. D., 259). See Increase: No. 10 (11 P. D., 51). TITLE. See Bounty Land: No. 4 (14 P. D., 415). See Disability: No. 11 (9 P. D., 341). See Division of Pension: No. 1 (15 P. D., 82). See Minors : No. 2 (15 P. D., 28). TOTAL DISABILITY IN ONE ARM. See Rate and Rating: No. 9 (13 P. D., 362). TOTAL DISABILITY IN A FOOT. See Disability: No. 10 (14 P. D., 182, 508). TOTAL DISABILITY IN BOTH FEET. See Rate and Rating: No. 10 (14 P. D., 524). TRAVEL PAY. See Service: No. 22 (14 P. D., 494). TREASURER OF SOLDIERS' HOME. See Division of Pension: No. 14 (13 P. D., 363). TUBERCULOSIS. See Death Cause: No. 11 (12 P. D., 342). See Evidence: No. 14 (15 P. D., 345). See Pathological Sequence: No. 21 (11 P. D., 480). TWO CLAIMS AND TWO FEES. See Fee: No. 8 (10 P. D., 198). TWO PENSIONS. See Reimbursement: No. 1 (10 P. D., 84). See Restoration: No. 2 (13 P. D., 378). TYPHOID FEVER. See Death Cause: No. 15 (15 P. D., 58). See Line of Duty: No. 35 (13 P. D., 358). See Origin: No. 1 (11 P. D., 329). See Pathological Sequence: No. 7 (12 P. D., 118). TYPEWRITTEN SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY. See Appeals : No. 5 (13 P. D., 400). ULCERATIONS. See Death Cause: No. 8 (12 P. D., 354). f PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. 495 ULCERATION AND SYNCOPE. See Pathological Sequence: No. 15 (13 P. D., 112). UNASSIGNED RECRUIT. See Service: No. 13 (9 P. D., 15). UNDERGOING PUNISHMENT. See Line of Duty : No. 6 (10 P. D., 370 ; 12 P. D., 464; 15 P. D., 54). UTAH LAWS. See Divorce: No. 9 (14 P. D., 99). See Marriage: No. 2 (mm) (14 P. D., 99). VERMONT LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (nn). No case reported. VESTED RIGHTS. See Decree of Nullity: No. 6 (15 P. D., 227). See Helpless Minor: No. 3 (15 P. D., 478). See Restoration : No. 5 (15 P. D., 475). VETERINARY SURGEONS. See Jurisdiction : No. 5 (13 P. D., 416). VICIOUS HABITS. References. See Attorneys : No. 8 (10 P. D., 460). See Evidence: No. 16 (11 P. D., .344). Index. 1. No presumption of. 2. When may be presumed. 1. No Presumption of. Vicious habits — Evidence — Act June ^7, 1890. (Morris Hess, 9 P. D.,252.) There being nothing in the case to arouse a suspicion that the disability was in any way due to vicious habits, or that the claim- ant has ever been addicted to vicious habits, or that his statement as to the circumstances under which the disability was incurred is untrue, rejection was not warranted. (Citing John Martin, 7 P. D., 578.) 2. When May be Presumed. Vicious habits — Syphilis — Act June ^7, 1890 — Jurisdiction of Com- missioner — Opinions of other Departments. (Ellen Corte, widow, 15 P. D., 427.) The Department will not give its sanction to a title to pension under the act of June 27, 1890, when the soldier was discharged 496 PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. by reason of venereal disease, unless there is clear, distinct, and demonstrative proof that the said disease was of innocent origin so far as the soldier is or was concerned. The Commissioner of Pensions is w^ithout authority to request an opinion from another Department of the Government as to the justness of a conclusion already reached by this Department. Information from other Departments as to the law, or the law as applicable to facts, must be sought through the Secretary of the Interior. VIRGINIA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (oo) (10 P. D., 15; 13 P. D., 146; 14 P. D., 445) ; No. 4 (9 P. D., 5) ; No. 15 (11 P. D., 167, 443). See Tables of State Statutes for 9, 11, 13, and 14 P. D. VISION. See Increase: No. 3 (12 P. D., 87, 92). See Line of Duty: No. 4 (10 P. D., 376; 12 P. D., 269). VOID MARRIAGES. See Estoppel: No. 2 (11 P. D., 403). See Legitimacy: No. 6 (13 P. D., 414). See Restoration: No. 4 (13 P. D., 441; 14 P. D., 141). VOIDABLE MARRIAGES. See Marriage: No. 2 (qq) (15 P. D., 447). VOID ENLISTMENTS. See Desertion: No. 5 (9 P. D., 488; 11 P. D., 193; 12 P. D., 137), VOIDABLE ENLISTMENTS. See Age: No. 2 (11 P. D., 193, 286). See Desertion : No. 2 (12 P. D., 80) ; No. 4 (g) (15 P. D., 8) ; No. 5 (9 P. D., 488 ; 11 P. D., 193 ; 12 P. D., 137). VOLUNTEERS. See Discharge: No. 5 (14 P. D., 326). WAGON MASTERS. See Service: No. 19 (11 P. D., 282). WAR WITH MEXICO. See Dependent Widow : No. 5 (10 P. D., 28 ; 15 P. D., 324). See Service: No. 4 (9 P. D., 28, 44, 108, 360; 10 P. D., 139, 425; 11 P. D., 21, 110, 163, 218; 14 P. D., 357; 15 P. D., 158, 544). PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. ' 497 WAR OF THE REBELLION. See Service: Nos. 5, 24 (i) P. D., 119, 126, 207; 15 P. D., 198, 281, 294). WAR WITH SPAIN. See Dependent Parents : No. 2 (11 P. D., 247). See Practice: No. 28 (13 P. D., 344). WEST VIRGINIA LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (qq) (14 P. D., 38; 15 P. D., 447) ; No. 9 (15 P. D., 308). See Tables of State Statutes for 15 P. D. WESTERN GUNBOAT FLOTILLA. See Service: No. 7 (15 P. D., 366). WIDOW AND MINOR. See Abandonment : 7 P. D., 437 ; 8 P. D., 42. ^ See Adulterous Cohabitation : No. 3 (9 P. D., 17). See Helpless Minor: No. 2 (9 P. D., 9). WIDOW'S PENSION. See Anterebellion Service: No. 2 (9 P. D., 193). See Marriage: No. 16 (10 P. D., 12). See Minors: Nos. 1, 2, 4 (9 P. D., 1.51 ; 12 P. D., 25; 13 P. D., 148, 151 ; 15 P. D., 28 ; 12 P. D., 83). WIDOW'S TITLE. See ;^IARRIAGE : No. 10 (14 P. D., 347). WIDOWS. See Abandonment: (7 P. D., 437; 8 P. D., 42). See Accrued Pensions: No. 1 (9 P. D., 276) ; No. 5 (11 P. D., 241) ; No. 7 (12 P. D., 208) ; No. 8 (13 P. D., 181) ; No. 9 (13 P. D., 188). See Adulterous Cohabitation : Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (9 P. D., 17, 62, 116, 324, 327 ; 10 P. D., 286 ; 13 P. D., 357 ; 14 P. D., 84, 219, 242, 362; 15 P. D., 48, 96; 12 P. D., 258). See Anterebellion Service: No. 2 (9 P. D., 193). See Appeals: No. 6 (13 P. D., 170). See Dependent Parents: No. 3 (10 P. D., 153; 12 P. D., 24). See Dependent Widow : Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (9 P. D., 1, 2, 76, 249, 254, 299, 318, 320, 502 ; 10 P. D., 9, 28, (•)7, 326 ; 12 P. D., 40, 266 ; 13 P. D., 31, 125, 448 ; 14 P. D., 80, 281, 360 ; 15 P. D., 127, 203, 257, 324, 329). See Minors: Nos. 1, 2, 4 (9 P. D., 151; 12 P. D., 25; 13 P. D., 148, 151 ; 15 P. D., 28 ; 12 P. D., 83). See Reimbursement: No. 2 (13 P. D., 201). See Remarriage: No. 1 (10 P. D., 324; 11 P. D., 338). See Restoration: No. 2 (12 P. D., 114, 1.39, 316. .510; 13 P. D., 118, 286, 355, 378, 435 ; 14 P. D., Ill, 128, 194, 198, 318, 411, 452 ; 15 P. D., 381, 446) ; No. 3 (13 P. D., 441 ; 14 P. D., 106, 141). 13070—06 32 498 • PENSION AND BOUNTY-LAND CLAIMS. WISCONSIN LAWS. See Marriage: No. 2 (rr) (10 P. D., 227). See Divorce : No. 7 (14 P. D., 173). See Decree of Nullity: No. 8 (15 P. D., 470). See Tables of State Statutes for 10, 14, and 15 P. D. See 14 P. D., 19. WITNESSES. ■ See Pathological Sequence: No. 1 (12 P. D., 425). WOOD ALCOHOL. See Line of Duty: No. 4 (10 P. D., 376; 12 P. D., 2G9). o UNIVEKSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, BERKELEY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in demand may be renewed if application is made before expiration of loan period. W9¥ »4ls24 15m-4,'24 m '^W^'^-