The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUHRING
This action came on for trial upon the facts without a jury and the Court, having heard the evidence and being sufficiently advised in the premises, now, this 20th day of July, 1943, finds the facts specially and separately states its conclusions of law thereon as follows:
1. The plaintiff and the defendant were born in the State of Indiana and were duly and lawfully married at Union City, County of Randolph, in said State on the 10th day of June, 1916.
2. That two children were born of said marriage, namely, Earl L. Noffsinger, born on the 12th day of May, 1917 who is now in the United States Military Service, and James Philip Noffsinger, born on the 30th day of May, 1925, who is under the care and custody of his mother, the plaintiff herein.
3. That, at the time of the grievances complained of, the plaintiff and defendant were bona fide residents of the District of Columbia, and had been such bona fide residents since the 1st day of November, 1936.
4. That the said plaintiff and defendant lived and cohabited together as husband and wife in the District of Columbia until the day of November, 1940, on which day the defendant wilfully abandoned his said wife and minor child, James Philip Noffsinger, and they have not lived or cohabited together as husband and wife since said date.
5. That the defendant is now and ever since the 1st day of November, 1936, has been in the employ of the American Automobile Association in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, as an educational director in its Safety and Traffic Engineering Department. At the outset of his employment, the defendant received a salary of $3,600, which was increased from time to time until, in the year 1942, such salary amounted to $4,685. Beginning January 1st, 1943, the defendant's salary was increased to $6,000 per annum. The Court further finds that, in addition to the salary received by said defendant, he was at all times allowed his expenses when out of Washington, District of Columbia, on business for said American Automobile Association, and his duties required him to be out of said city the greater part of the time.
7. That on the 9th day of May, 1942, the defendant was awarded an absolute divorce from the plaintiff on the ground of extreme cruelty by the First Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Ormsby. The plaintiff did not appear and contest the action.
8. That the defendant went to the State of Nevada for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce with no intention of residing in said State permanently or for an indefinite period.
The Court finds as a fact that throughout their married life together the plaintiff was a faithful and devoted wife and mother, and interested in the welfare of her husband and children. The defendant had no ground for divorce either for extreme cruelty or for any other cause. On the contrary, the defendant is solely to blame for the unfortunate situation and, in instituting an action against the plaintiff for divorce on the ground of cruelty in the State of Indiana and later in the State of Nevada, when defeated on jurisdictional grounds in Indiana, acted in bad faith and failed to make full disclosure of the facts.
9. That the defendant was actually, physically and corporeally present in the State of Nevada for a period of only forty-one (41) days before he brought his suit for divorce on the 23rd day of March, 1942, but represented to the Nevada court that he had resided in Nevada for more than six weeks preceding the commencement of his action for divorce.
10. That in order to maintain and support herself and the minor child, James Philip Noffsinger, in the manner in which they were accustomed to live, the plaintiff will be ...