Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-11-03
ESTABLIsHED 1910.
OLD-FASHIONED LAW.
Decision In the First Circuit Court Of
Memphis in q Divorce Suit.

: Decision in the First Circuit Court Q
Memphis in q Divorce Suit
: The Case Of Arab L. Reese vs.. W. Il
= Reese" May and January"
t A Sermon for QuarrelsOme Couples
GoOd, Sound, Wholesome Advice.
/ Mrs. Arab L. Reese petitions this
! court for a divorce, q UincUl0 ulutri-
Z R0nii, from her husband, W. X. Reese,
! claiming that she is entitled TO it on two
Of the grounds set forth In our statute.
These grounds are:
: First-That the husband is guilty OF
! such cruel and inhumsn treatment OF
I conduct toward his wife as renders II
! unsafe and improper for her to cohabit
with him and be under his dominion
, and control.
Second-That be has offered such in
dignities 70 her person as to render her
condition intOlerable, and thereby forced
her 10 withdraw.
Under the first ground it viii be per-
NEANEA AlAAL kLlE uuHnlAlN AtE1AlACLI nl
the wife must be SO inhuman that it is
not only improper but UNSAFE for her to
cohabit with him, or be under his doBlin-
ion and control.
Under the second the iHdi0Rities must
be such as to render hercOndition INToI.-
ERABLE, and that by reason OF this
ist0iera6le treatment she is forced to
tUithdrosU.
The question, then, for this court to
determine in this case is, does the evi-
dence adduced entitle the plaintiff to her
Z divorce upon either of the above
grounds. The court has carefully con-
sidered the testimony. 1t is in substance
as follows:
: On the twenty-seyenth of December,
1871, the parties were married, COM
/ plsinant being eighteen and defendant
about fOrty-three years of age.
AFTER MARRIAGE
4 the parties came to Memphis, but soon
! returned to cOmplainant's fathers, near
4 COllierviIle, where they staid two
weeFs and returned to Memphis. After
ward, on the eighteenth of July, 1872,
4 they again visited complainant's fathers
and staid about week. Shortly after
( this, and while the parties were board
/ ing in Memphis, defendant was in
+ dicted and convicted of larceny, impris-
j oned, and remained so until the case
was disposed Of upon appeal to the Su-
preme Court, which was done at the
Z April term of the court, when the de-
fendant was acquitted of the charge.
1 While these proceedings were going
on this suit was commenced, and de-
fendant, upon being released from
I prison Offering TO return TO his
wife, was met by an open refusal
on her part to allow him to do
so. What effect his imprisonment
and conviction had upon her determine
ton to leave him it is not necessary TO
inquire, for these things afford no legal
I ground for a divorce, as the conviction
was set aside by the supreme judicature
Of the State.
Complainant'sm mother testifies that de-
! fendant was very abrupt, quarrelling all
the time of the second visit spoken of
above. Shortly after this the parties at
tended a ball at COllierville, and
complainant danced a good deal,
and her jealous husband quar-
relied with her after they got home, as
witness expresses it, "quarrelled with
her all night" which is certainly put
ting il pretty strongly. And while this
]
about the welfare of her daughter, says
that this quarrelling lasted all night,
that she, being unable to sleep, heard it,
she in addithrn swears that she could
not hear wharqwas said, but knew he
was quareliing, because she heard COM
( plainant tell him to d" hush, she tUd1lted to
/ go to Sleep" Evidently, up to this naint
! cOmplainant's condition was neilAUI 50
4 |" iBtOlerG6len y as TO % force her to with
/ draw" nor was defendants treatment Of
/ her so cruel or 5llaltnld71 as to render il
unsafe for her to cOhabit with him or be
under his dominion and control. This
/ witness further testifies that
DEFENDANT WAS so JEALOUS
/ that he made himself and all around
/ him miserable. He (defendant) accused
/ complainant Of talking to other gentle
men at this ball, AID Of making too
much of them. In lie morning of
/ the night above spoken of, defendant
arose in a perfect rage, cursed consider
ably, threatening to kill several gentle
men because they had danced with his
4 wife. Witness does not know thst she
I could "word" what was said, che said
so much''; and, strange to say, she does
not attempt to 'iword" what was said,
/ except the threat TO kill several gentle
men, none Of whom she names, how
/ ever. Nor do l suppose that this threat
! was very serious, or that the gentle
menn stood in mortal fear of defendant.
l True, this witness says these "ill words"
about "killing several gentlemen and
/ eursing considerably were addressed to
] complainant; but, not knowing what
/ the sill words" were, except as above,
We cannot determine how "illn they
were, or what effect they should have in
this case. Certainly, cursing at all is
ungentlemanly in the presence Of
woman, more so; and in the presence
/ of, and especially at ones wife, it is
mean and contemplate but is
/ it, therefore, a cause Of divorce?
1 III so, / fear hundreds of wives in Mem
phis have good cause for divorce. True,
I fearful execration and swearing might
4 be carried to such an extent, as would
/ compel this court from this cause alone,
] TO release a truly and refined Christian
woman, from the embraces and society
Of the blasphemer, but | do not think
! this case presents such 'intolerable
/ treatment or indignity" from this source
as to warrant the exercise of this power.
At another time defendant got mad,
4 because, as he vowed complainant had
Z Deen RECEIVING soult Ol ueI pcduAs allQ
! at another be left home, announcing
/ that he would he gone several days, and
returned the same day because he
( thought" says the witness, che would
catch her with some Of her beauX.n
The father testifes that on another
occasion, while the mother lay sick, he
came to Memphis for his daughter
I complainant 10 90 out and see her, and
4 defendant refused to let her go. This
was certainly
VERY UNFEELING CONDUCT,
And however much it might wound
I the sensibilities of an affectionate daugh-
ter and young wife, and however much
this court deprecates such conduct in a
husband, yet be had the legal right to
refuse, and the dutifll wife could but
obey.
I Smith,a brother-in-law who bore him
self with great propriety upon the wit
7 ness-stand, testified that defendant got
( mad because complainant danced at the