The Republican journal., 1873-05-15
For the Republican Journal.
The Call Divorce Case

| Stauulng OF the result. Inc charges III the libel
were extreme cruelty and desertion. The
| cruelty alleged was not so much physical as
| mental and moral. The first allegation was
that DR.. Call greatly deceived the libelant as
10 his character and history previous TO the
marriage which took place i'll January, 1866.
To prove this charge the libellant produced the
| record of the Supreme Court in Lincoln Co.
showing that DIR. Call had been convicted OF :,
State Prison offense, of character to bring him
and I'll concerned with him into disgrace; that
he only escaped the penalty bv the Governors
pardon. Of this she had no knowledge before
| marriage The libellant was a deyoutly pious
| woman, member of the Congregationalist
church, before marriage, and the Dett profeSsed
| to have respect for her religious convictions
| and for her church, and gave her to believe
before marriage, that her privileges would not
| be abridged, and that her views and feelings
| would be respected. The libel alleged that in
| this respect he had treated her with great con-
tempt and cruelty, and had slandered and
| traduced her char acter, and had required her to
| torego attendance upon her church and its
| established ordinance, and that he had perse-
| cuted her until her life had become miserable
| In proof Of this charge evidence was introduced
| that during nearly the whole of the period that
| DIR. Call lived with his wife (about five wears
| in ways too numerous to be mentioned here,
! he inflicted upon her the most shameful abuse
| in this respect. As an illustration. one method
| of ANNOYANCE may be referred to. Mrs. Call had
| a book entitled 1.-The Mind of Jesus" filled with
| religious reflections, intended as an aii to the
ba ,aI TO r1,I
| this book a good deal. and many passages in it
were marked by her, and an occasional re-
| Election noted in the margin. DR.. Call was ac-
| customed to write the most vulgar and insult
| ing, as well as profane epihets in this book
| whenever it fell in his way. For one example
| take this paragraph from The book:
| Each has appointed work to perform.
| 1t may be the quiet unobtrusve inner work
| the secret PRAYER. the mortified sin the forgiven
injury. the tritling act of self sacrifice for G DDS
| glory and the good of others. of which no eye
| but His who seeth in secret is coonizant. 1t
| matters not how SMALL Remember. with Him
motive dignifes action. 1t is not ashot we do
| but h0W we do it. He can be glorified in little
| things. as well as great Things. and bv nothing
more than the daily ar0lk the do51y 1te"
| Mrs. Call had noted in the margin of this
| sentence. Bear this ever in mind" under
which DIR. Call subsequently wrote, with I:
mark referring to the words. "the daily walk
the daily life these coarse and insulting words
| ''The daily He'll We quote another paragraph
| from the book:
| Words tell what you should be; deeds tell
what you are. Let those around YOU see that
| there is a reality in walking 1eih God and
working for God
| This sentence had been undersigned by Mrs.
| Call, and she had wr itten in margin: 'Deeds
| are the best evidence of characters" under
which her husband wrote, "Yes, those around
| you DO see she devil"
| He was accustomed to write insulting language
| in her Sabbath school books. and it appeared
that he refused to allow her to attend the
sabbath school. In the spring Of 1871, thirty
new members We're admitted to the church on
one Sabbath; among them was a retired ship
master with whom DR.. Call, for some reason,
had become offended. When he learned that his
wife had participated in the ordinance of the
Lords Supper atler this person was admitted
to the church, he deserted her bed, and although
he compelled her to live for Il year longer in
the house with him, she was treated by him in
the most contemptuous and insulting manner.
In the spring of 1872, DR.. Call sold his dwell
| fathers house with her child. where she has
| ever since lived, receiving no support for her.
! self or child from the Dr. who is very wealthy
man, except such as the court has since COM
| PEELED him TO provide. Deft admitted on cross
| examination that he did not believe in Il future
! state of exist ence and that he was in this re-
spec like the beasts of the field. although for
| few Sabbaths after his marriage he att ended
| church, and talked with his wife freely on re-
| gious subjects, and protested to have respect
| for them.
| There is an error in the paragraph Of your
| correspondent, which states that ''the harmony
! OF their union was disturbed" before the second
| day of their marriage. They had no word of
| difference. and nothing occurred which should
| disturb the harmony of any couple, or which
| did disturb it, so far as the libe,lant knew, or
| had any reason to suppose, and there was never
! any insnuation or charge to that effect, by the
| Det., until after the separation.
| There is also another paragraph which mis-
| conceiveS the facts. Your correspondent says
that ''on the next day she went to Boston, and
the day after, he followed, finding her after
considerable search, and many inquiries at the
American House, where she then unwttingly,
as she says, reinquished her right of dover in
| all his real estate in Maine and Massachusetts,
| which is variousIy estimated from fifty TO
| seventy-fye thousand dollars"
| The testimony was that after spending two
days in Lowell, the Deft. having further bust
| ness there, and his wife wishing to visit some
| friends in Boston, went there one day in adj
vance of her husband, and that he met her the
next day at the American House, which was
the place appointed by him for their meeting
before they separated in Lowell. While in Ros-
ton she signed two Deeds Of two house lots in
Lowell, as she then understood, and still
believes. The Deft stated upon the stand, that
they were deeds of all his real estate in Maine
and Massachusetts, made out to his two sons
but that they were never delivered. and were
shortly afterwards destroyed. Whether this is
true or false, Mrs. Call does not know. She
never heard of it before the trial
The letter which your correspondent copies
was written many months after the separation
during which time she had abstaned entirely
from attending the sacrament of her church,
which had given her husband SO much offense,
and was not suggested by any consciousness on
her part that she had given her husband just
cause of complaint; but thinking it possible she
might have said or done something, under the
influence of his harsh treatment, which was not
strictly in accordance with her duty as wife,
she determined to remove every obstacle to
conjugal happiness for which she could be held
responsible. Hence the letter, which breathes a
most Christian spirit and proved to the satisfac-
ton OF the court that she was in no respect re-
sponsible for the separation.
The reply of the Dr., delivered to her month
afterwards not recital of his 'sgreviances .