The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-02-28
LAW REPORT.
COMMON PLEAS.

TUsAI OF DEcass ron 9IyoRcE-ALINoXY Y GRASEERP
urday. Mrs, Duhme and her attorneys We're present
Mr. Duhme was not present. e"t Was represented by
In tisposing Of the ease Judge Dickson remarked
that the pettoP t divorce and a%5ony was asked
duty; and & the defense was general denial Of this
6R aySs & aS H
tOgher % then oSyns her aMS STSsbsS ths
SCUM so until May H. isSf When she finally left him, and
on the same Sntn brought 70 this Sctio5 h5 At the time
tune; the wife brought to her husband !S7,2i6 in
money, and real estate in which she had NE Inter
psr S her a6Sn ssf met PseT
fortune The parties Yers Of nSSttGnalities
The current testimony Of the witnesses was to the
effect, that Mr. Duhme was person Of correct busi-
SaS 81 %n
Duhme, prior to her marriage, was joyous happy,
s
Of melancholy and sadness Such attribu;
| be actors in such q suit as this, ,EIllJaW VI
The grounds relied upon to sustain the application
the
ward her undue economy; and the evidence relied
Rat he bis on Fourth and rem
to rooms 10 premises known as "Duhmes building" "
@aRS MRS. q did mo-, Complain u going
in hsss Sa shs S SsS sn
Though Snrt i .b tG P e on q s s
eOngruity of persons Of 20 much wealth living in such
tenemsnts, they conceiyed the satisfaction she ex:
pressed with them pFeslnded her from alleging that
secVnaly = Y alleged that in his general degort-
mcnt he was cold harsh and and snssfns The tsSt
period after marriage; that S respondent not only
S% M % as sSe "
In the expressive language Of one of the witnesses
u hsy &c sS
Of life during the ak months prepening their ma
E4d street Sr more S&s 81 ss S liz tss s%y
his wife yet vas neSSr IN cohyersaton M with her
SS SI fSsf C ms
children, but spoke not 10 their mother; slept in tn
Sfn hsG fa$ sHSE asG nS% %
ing at the table.she and her tha1etetS alone Thi
G9 "PPGS5a no day. Y SRs Sas dRs
@ sr By S SSc in RdS@s Of ' s
there was another side of the picture showing ciI
in itgation Of this conduct The met ,ost
marriage there was on the part Of Mrs D. aSed an an
sysrs 9T r to s% Sb sbs mn so al
speak e him was PLEASANTLY and there %SS no % wei 81
h S'sT iop@ &S
by his tll.treatmen the case would be different trSl
was so caused, whether the ill-treatpent was 4
result Of this ayersoH There was nothing dhi in IL
for this harsh Language, harsh usage, which was N!
tSs e x% o as 1Sss
"
y the opinion of the Court, the evidence makes o.
Q that MIR: Dnhme was guilty, though under mitigatn
| circumstances,O Of harsh and unfeeling treatment.
Thirdly, IL alleged 10 Yas iealops yithout -four
dation Of his wife, and that this Jealousy manifesto
itself In indignites toward her, and in the commun
cation q his suspicious to others which might nat9
expressions addressed 70 her, however, were rath'
those Of momentary anger than Of hxed feeling q
rema.s made 90 others We're made during the periG
pfseparntiOn when, owing to the respondent's col
. ditlon Of mind, somo allowance was to be made;
but ESS K refer assS sS sR
tenuatt1g circumstance In considering MS duct
a tended q Spiritual circle and lecture. The gon
thought IL entirely unjust that this should be oner'
in extenuatlon Of bis c0ndnct. Mrs. d. was now
Il about middle life, and on NOne occasion In that
was at spiritual circle, and at another at spriti
. lecture. On neither oecasipn could she well ebse
herself because they occurred her boarding hous
II and hero sister and relatives were there At tn
time f9O, the public mind was excited on this 81
: jecti being matter of curiosity with H1ms anu
nothing In hPr conduct IN this re'Pee. 'has 'hoO
D I "a e. A. O. .