Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-05

A Melancholy Case of Domestic In-
- ~ ~ eongenialIty. ISL


! Woollsy has given it more than usu
! prominence. The opinion is peeulia
too. 1t has few or none of the dry oil
/ phrases common to the edicts of court
and is comparatively novel piece
RI work. 1t embraces all the facts ia th
case, and We give it here entire
Lucy Gray OpiuiOu and order remanl
William III. Gray. ing to the rules,
This case exposes and illustrates til
judicial error in granting divorces for triv
ial or underlined causes.
At the first reading of the yoIuminou
record l thought that, contrary to IN
idea of ethical rules and civil policy,
should be forced to separate two peopl
who had agreed to live together by ever
bond that is sanctioned by all laws whicI
men obey. 80 a.a.l ...s
4 An earnsst and able appeal in tn
written argument by the young an,
worthy counsel for the defendant induced
second reading of the record, and til,
case is altogether different from tha
which | thought it was. l see il now. -
4 In March, 1866 marriage was sol
emnized between two young people o
good standing in social life. The hus-
band was physician, not more thar
twenty-five years old, and commanded
an unusually large practice for one o
that age. '--''
| lie was remarkable for his industry
thrift, generosity, and religious habits.
The young counsel who has defended
him so ably in this case, was his school
mate, and ] lay much stress upon bis
earnest statement that the defendant
was manly fellow while at school.
| The respected minister of the church
OF which the defendant was a member,
declares that he was and is a genuine
christian, and good citizen.
Six OF eight witnesses of undoubted
character, testify fully TO the excellence
of the defendant as a man, and to his
just conduct as husband. Looking at
him simply through the testimony Of his
witnesses, he not only does not deserve
a shameful decree divorcing him from
the wife whom he says he still loves,
but he is an example for many husbands
to follow.
The plaintiff was young girl, not more
than twenty years of age. Her father
was gentleman in social rank, and pos
sesslng a comfortable estate of seyenty~
five or one hundred thousand dollars.
She received an excellent education, and
all her witnesses, not less than ten, de-
scribe her as gentle, tender and loving.
The two young people married, worthy
then, and with future which seemed
propitious. The husband had the con-
sent of his family, and the wife more than
the appreciation Of hers, for her brother
took an active part to secure the alliance.
They had but one child, that lived
long enough for the father and mother to
see their images reflected from common
object Of mingled love.
Scarcely two years had passed before
the wife filed her bill in this court,
charging that her husband was cruel and
inhnman, and praying that the bonds by
which they were united might be broken
forever.
The husband answered and declared
that he always loved his wife, and that
he could not be cruel to her.
Her witnesses, not less than ten in
number, prove that he was cruel, inhu-
man and mean, and that she was faithful,
suffering, patient and tender.
His witnesses, almost as numerous.
prove that he was afectionate, attentive,
laborious, and loving his wife above all
things; and that she was a pstuIant,
quarrelsome and insupportable terma4
CANT. 54a a#sa
Two Of them go so far as to say that
she waved a white handkerchief from
her window to allure young men on the
street. .... 80 .fi Cd. I
How is this2
The answer is easy The husband
was not cruel and Inhuman. The wife
was not petulaRt OF quarrelsome, and
the story fthe white andkerchiefshoula
not have been foisted by family passion
into the record, because it is false.
Had these two people been allowed to
live and love together they would still
be faithful to the vows they offered,
which received sanction higher than
that given by human law.
ALI her witnesses who prove anything
are her family, her physician, her family
friends, or the enemies of her husbands
| family.
All Of his are Of exactly the same
| character. -.-s-.
Each family seemed to think it was its
right and duty to govern and control
plaintiff and defendant, or to make them
hate each other and then separate.
never knew two stronger swearers than
the brother of the plaintiff and the broth
or Of the defendant.
The tribes became hostile, ami these
two people, SO young, and so bound by
| every thing to make man and woman
love each other, became the objects which
were used to crafty family rivalry, hate
and spite.
And now, without crime, but merely
misguided, with affections withered, VOWS
broken and the future blackened, / am
invoked to perpetuate this shame, and
let the man go marry another woman,
and let the woman go marry another man.
l will not do it. .'.... ....
And have not given the only reason.
The civil law is supreme on this
bench. If the Chancellor believe in
other laws, which conflict with and are
superior to the civil law, he must aban-
don his opinions or his place. This q
place solely for human justice according
to human law.
But if discretion be allowed-snd in
cases of divorce the Chancellor has largs
disoretion-then all laws can be con
suited which elevate mankind and adj
vance moral civilization-under sarncir-
eumstances what he thinks becomes the
law in the case. have my views, and,
not now wholly fettered by human stats
utes, l will enforce them to the honor Of
society. Ht .s
Throughout the civilized world great
temples have been erected and cOnse,
Grated to the enforcement of creed
which declares that there are other laws
besides human which govern the sacred
contract of marriage. If were to de-
clare that creed to be true, should e
beyond my business. Were L to deny
that it is true, should be unfit for thi:
place. But many wiser and be tier thar
| believe it, and must be careful lest
offend law higher than that admins
tered in this court, and usurp a jurisdic
ton higher than mine. Better to b,
careful in tearing asunder bonds which
may be indisoluble elsewhere.
To dismiss this suit might not be right
The proper course to take is to leave
locus peniteRtiR.
This is the spring, and if they will g
to the grave Of their dead child they vii