OCR Text |
Show industrial commission. I Hearing was hd and th commission commis-sion found that prior to th tims of Wesley's death Mrs. Wealey had ob-' ob-' talned a decree ot divorce from htm 'and at the tlm of hi death ahe "was I not living with or dependent upon him I In any way for maintenance and aup- port and that he left no dependenta" i The commission, however, required jth employer of Wesley to reimburse th applicant In tha sum of $U0 as 'reasonable funeral expenses. I The conclusion of th court aa pre-! pre-! sen ted by Justice J. B. Prick I: "It j would be a most extraordinary Incongruity Incon-gruity to hold that although a wife had made complaint In a court of competent compe-tent Jurisdiction that her huaband hsd utterly failed to comply with his marital obligation to provide her with the necessaries of life and for that reason she asked that the bonds of matrimony be severed, which waa done, and the parttee were released from the marital obligations snd their property rights duly adjudged, that notwltb-stsndlng notwltb-stsndlng such uncontroverslbl facts a long time after th marries a relation had been severed upon the express ground that aha had received no aup-port aup-port ah may nevertheless b awarded compensation aa a dependent of one who It had been Judicially determined had failed and neglected to provld for her or to support her. "Under such circumstances ths law doea not Impose the duty upon tha employer em-ployer to aupport the former divorced wife of an Injured employe. Had ah remained hla wife and, although they might not have continued to live together, to-gether, a different queatlon might be Prevented. It seems to ' us, howsver. that under the undisputed facta no othsr conclusion was permissible than th on arrived at by th commission. Th findings and decision of the commission com-mission ar therefore affirmed." j |