The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1828-05-07


victed, but afterwards pardoned. for larceny
Ever since March, 1924, the lbellant and he
chldfeh nave been supported by her father. III,
respondent providing nothing substantially fo
their maintenance. Recently he has coma +,
boston, where he has INDUCED in the mos
gross drunkenness, and has been twice sent b,
the foiice Court to the House of Correction.
Inc objection to the application on the ground
that the wife voluntarily left him in New York
would have been valid, if she left him only on
account OF poverty, sickness, or misfortune
but II obliged to seek shelter with her parents.
on account OF the profigate conduct of her nus
band, and to preserve her children from the
contamination of bad example, she does NOT
thereby forfeit her right to divorce. if she he
abe TO prove the gross, wanton, and cruel neg
lect which is made by the statute the ground Of
divorce. Fhe failure of husband and father
to afford maintenance, and leaving to the moth
er to nurture and educate their children. either
by means of her own labor or the assistance of
her friends, is gross, wanton, and cruel neglect,
if voluntary, or occasioned by the vices and ir-
regularities of the husbands life
The words of the Statute, Icing Of sufficient
ability thereto" doe, not mean that he must
have property sufficient, without industry or
attention to business, to provide suitable main
tenancc A man blessed with health and
strength to work ispf sufficient ability If such
become voluntary habitual drunkards, they
necessarily become poor and miserable, but this
Is voluntary privafon of ability, and they are
not to be consideredas having no ability, so as
to prevent divorce,pny more than if they vol
unfairly wasted or de4royed their property.
A divorce was deemed on the ground that
the respondent had grossly, wantonly, and
cruelty neglected to maintain his wife and chill
dren, being of suficientability, but for settled
and inveterate habit of iitemperance yollntari
ly INDUCED.
AT the same term an application was made
tor divorce in another case, on the ground of
cruelty on the part of tho husband. It was
proved that the respondent was addicted to in
Temperance, that when in liquor he bad struck
his wife, and otherwise cruelty abused her. He
frequently used taunting, provoking, and pro-
fame language to his wife on account of her re-
Hgion. While sick, lie abused her with scuIril-
lous language-said she must leave her religion
or leave him-and his conversation was bias
phemous and profane. 1t WIS testified that the
wife was mild, gentle, ami amiabie woman,
and that she had been pati.nt sufferer under
the most wanton abuse. The Judge decided
-, '"iS was such case of extreme cruelty.
WITHIN the meaning of the statute. as fur, '-ned
a just cause OF separation, and do sd divorce
thereupon.
+ Several similar decisions have been since
made in other cases, We recollect, year or
two since, to have been present when a case
came before the Supreme Judicial Court in this
town. in which it was proved that the husband,
in consequence of ntemperance, had abused his
wife, haFing, in one or more instances, struck
her, and, at one time, turned her out of the
house in the night time. A divorce was de-
creed and the husband ordered to give bonds
for the payment to the wife, quarterly, of sum
sufficient for her support.