The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-06-11
NOT GRANTED.
An Unusual Occurrence in Kentucky 90
Woman Refused DivOrce-Remnrhnble
Opinion by Louisville Chancellor.

Woman Refused DivOrce-Remnrkable
Opinion by Louisville Chancellor.
The following opinion will be read with INTEREST,"
Louisville Chancery Court-Lucy Gray, vs. William
III. Gray.-Opinion and order remandng the rules.
This exposes and illustrates the judicial error
in granting divorces for trivial underlined causes.
In March, 1885, marriage was solemnized between
two young people OF good standing in social lie.
The husband was physician, not more than twenty
five years old, and commanded an unusually large
practice for one at that age. He 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 his earnest statement that the defendant
was manly fellow while at school. The respected
minister of the church Of which the defendant was
member declares that he was, and is, gentle Chris
Six or eight witnesses Of undoubted character tes-
tify fully to the excellence OF the defendant az
man, and to his just conduct as a husband. Look
ing at him simply through the testimony OF witnesses
he not only does not deserve shameful decree di-
vOrctng him from the wife whom he says he still
loves, but he is an example for many husbands to
follow.
The plaintiff was a young girl, not more than 20
years OF age. Her father was gentleman in social
rank and possessing comfortable estate Of S75,eOe
or 100000. She received an excellent education,
and all her witnesses describe her as gentle tender
and loving,
The two young people married, worthy then, and
with future which seemed proptOuS The hus-
band had the consent Of his family, and the wife
more than the appronation OF hers for her brother
took an active part to secure the alliance They had
but one child who lived long enough for the father
and mother to see their images reflected from
common object of mingled love-
"
flied her bill in this Court charging that her husband
was cruel and lnhuman, and praying that the bonds
by which they were united might be broken for ever.
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 inhuman, and mean, and that she
was faithful, suffering, patient and tender. His
witnesses, almost as numerous, prove that he was
atIectionate, attentive, .laborious, and loving
his wife above all things; and that she
was petulant quarrelsome, and insupportable ter
magant. 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 How is this? The
answer is easy. The husband not cruel and in
human. The wife was not petulant or quarresome,
and the story of the white handkerchief should not
have been fosted by family passion into the record,
Had these two people been allowed to live and love
together they would still be faithful to the vows they
given by human law.
All her witnesses who prove anything are her
family, her physician, her family friends, or the
mics of her husbands family.
All OF his OF exactly the same character.
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 sepa-
rate. never knew two stronger swearers than the
brother oil the plaintiff and the brother OF the de-
fendant
The families became hostile, and these two people,
so young, and so bound by everything to make man
and woman love each other, became the objects
witch were used to crafty family rivalry, hate, and
spite.
And now, without crime, but merely misguided
with affections withered VOWS broken, and the fu-
-ture blackened, am invoked to perpetuate this
and the woman go marry another man. will not
do it.
And have not given the only reason.
The civil law Is supreme on this bench. III the
Chacellor believes in other laws which conflict with
and are superior to the civil law, he must abandon
his opinion his place. This is place solely for
human justice according to human law.
But If discretion be allOwed-and in cases OF
divorce the Chancellor has large dscreton-then all
laws can be consulted which elevate mankind and
advance moral civilization Under such circum-
stances what he thinks becomes the law of the
have my views, not now wholly fettered, of merely
human statutes will enforce them to the honor Of
society.
Throughout the civilized world great temples have
been erected and censecrated to the enforcement of
a creed which declares that there other laws besides
human which govern the sacred contract Of mar
rage II were to declare that creed to be true
should go beyond my business. Were l to deny that
it is true should be unfit for this place. But many
wiser and better than believe it, and must be
careful lest offend law higher than that admins
tered by this Court and usurp jurisdiction higher
than mine. Better to be careful in tearing aSunder
bonds which may be suabe elsewhere.
To dismiss this suit might not be right The proper
course to take is to leave a locus penitentiB. .=
This is the spring. and If they will go to the grave
of their dead child they will find flowers there, and
flowers suggest forgiveness and love. They may yet
obterate from the past all that was painful, and OBJ
tain from the future all that brightly promised
Let the case go to the rules
r. w. WooLLEY, Chancellor pro tenn.