ESMNA V. BBOOKHAUS. 167 �transaction may be asked direotly whether any frand was intended. It is, of course, the duty t)f the court in such cases to scrutinize the. acts, ,to see if ihey correspond vdth the alleged purpose. It is apparent that the circumstance of tiie plaihtiff's retum to Milwaukee in December wafi one, •wMch, if unexplained, would tend to throw doubt npon the permanancy of the alleged settlement in Minnesota. But if her retum -was for an object tnerely temporary, as she allegeis, then her domiciliary «tatw ra that state would not be affected. .Comment was made upon the fact that the plaintiff's hus« band pledged their household fumiture and lef t it in the hands of a pawnbroker, at the time they removed to Minnesota, as a circnmetance indicative of a purpose not to abandon tiieir residenGe in Milwaukee. While the situation in -whicb their foriiitnre was platsed bas a bearing upon the pecuniary abil- ity of the husband to engage in business, it bas seemed to me that the fact that the parties broke up housekeeping, stored their fnmiture and pawned it for money, which muat hare enabled them to remove from the state, tends rather to cor- roborate the claim that the removal was made with a view of establishing a permanent residence elsewhere, than otherwise. The plaintiff's home had always been in Milwaukee. {Eere her parents and famUy resided. Why should these acts be done unless there was a hona fide intention to remove to an- other state? The court cannot infer that they were done merely to enable her to begin this suit in this court, in the absence of any proof tending in that direction. �To adopt the view taken by the leamed counsel for tha defendants, involves, as I conçoive, the utter rejection of the plaintifE's testimony as quite unworthy of belief. I do not thiok it is ôuf&ciently impeached to justify the court in so doing as to material matters whereof she speaks from avowed Personal knowledge;. and we have to settle the question upon the weight of credible evidence as it is now presented to the court. There was a breaking up by the parties of household Ufe in Milwaukee. There was an actual removal to another state. There appears to have been an intention to remove to a fixed place in that state, fpUo'yred by a change to another ����
