Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/778

 '766 FEDERAL REPORTER. �concluded; that »slie and her husband went there in August to permanently reside, and for the purpose of making that state their permanent home; that their original intention was to locate in Glencoe, but, on failure of the contemplated business enterprise there, they concluded and thereafter intended to remain in St. Paul as their place of residence, and that when this suit was begun they had no intention of returning, and have not since intended to return, to Wiscon- sin to reside. �These are the prominent features of the plaintiff's testi- mony. There are other portions of her testimony which, it is proper to remark, ought to be eonsidered with a good deal of allowanoe, suoh as that relating to her husband's business affairs, his personal intentions, his supposed naturalization as a citizen, and his voting at the election inSt. Paul; beoause, presumably, her knowledge of those matters was obtained by communication from him. �But the question is, do not the facts, to the extent that �they are established. by testimony which the court ought to �accept as pertinent and legitimate, make a case of citizen- �ship in another state, within the rule laid down by the autbor- �ities? .* Since the question is one of mixed law and fact, and since �so much may depend upon intention, in connection with the �acts of the party and the circumstances of the case, it is �sometimes difficult to determine when there bas been such a �change of domicile as destroys a former citizenship and estab- �lishes a new one. The plaintiff bas testified, under objection, �to the intentions and purposes of herself and husband. It is �true, as argued, that intention is to be collected from acts, �and therefore it is not competent for a party to prove his �own declarations of intention, made before any acts done, in �order to give character to his subsequent acts. But where �acts have been done, such as actual removal from one place �to another, it is, as I understand, competent in a case like �this for the party to testify to his purpose and intention as �connected with those acts, when they are brought in question, �precisely as, in a case where fraud is charged, an actor in the ����