The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1875-07-23

I funds belonging to the succession received
| by him. 1t is lastly ordered that . writ OF
, possession issue and the Sheriff is ordered
into the possession of Charlotte Temple
Miller, surviving wife and heir of Everett
Miller. deceased, all the property Of every
kind belonging to his succession.
j. 5. Ray, Public Administrator.
The Law OF Divorce.
Nelson J.Scott VS.. Georgia Scott.-Appoai
from nth District Court. Claiborne FsSlsh.
further cohabitasion With her Is insap ssa.
towards him and his children by = former
nss 70 n:
ing ali it's allegations, tho wife, in ansWsr
| her husband Of habitHai intox icatfon On hts
part renders it insnpportable ON her part to
ingly i'll and Grabbed manner, cursing and
a ABUSING her; and on ono OCCASION that he
Senes praying deeree Of d divors nom 6er
husbands division ofthe community prop
arty between ', them, for alimony, 80. There
to have tho. child decreed to them. The
husband, and decreasing to her the custody
and tutorship of the child, with reservation
to the wife to recover her share Of the com.
munity OF acquits and gains. The plaintiff
The disposition we shall make Of thia
bill OF exceptions found in the Transcript.
We have examined the testimony In tits
Grafton, We do not give to it the character
and purport which seems to he attached to
j, by the contendins parties: i !. doSbsie:.
ings and prejudices Of relations aud frionda
VII" have testified on either aide.
fhis il NATURAL and found In cases OF this
II is shown that the husband Ia addict
and that when under its fearful intiueuce
good hnmor no treats hiswife kindly.
Difficulties seems to have arisen between
occasions left tho eo coz % ID do%istie and
one of tw" reconciIiations between them.
This is denied by tho counsel OF the deten-
lish a reconciliation that took place In is7s.
Tho wife 1t is shown WAS In the habit OF
%!H n Opium nm. or morphine In e"nsideEa.
evidence establishes that tho use Of these
scdMiycs had any effects upon her OF any
| detendants use of narcotics, says shC knew
nor ten or eleven years and knew nothing
cievet lady and her Bearing good.s ' ''
In this instance is presented tho common
case s, of dim ain arising between :teP
and inv"ivo Mi tho household in d,scora
it sS sf reside %sss s
Isotweon them and his vito amicabIo rela-
tions, 1t sccnls, have not afWay been pro-
served. Often, no doubt, tho conflicting
foolings of the father and tho husband may
have boon taxed to an extent beyond the
. power of his philosophy to MAINTAIN equani-
, lances and chulitions that are constantly
occurring in families not troubles of 40
, grcivouS character that they arc to he
: romedied only by divorce. Tho difficulties
unhnppify existing between the litigants,
we infcr from tho evidence, have arisen
mainly from this source. No grave and in
s"iicrahle cause iii our Judgment exists
, jistifying 81 decree of divorce.
It was not tho intcntiOn OF tho law max or
hat courts should DO governed in their de-
) cisonS of cases OF this sort by tho declArs-
' tions and wishes of tho parties themselves
acting under excitement and iissntisfac-
ton. Their allegations of grievances in
Supportabfo must DO made good by proof to
;Ut horzc tho action of tho Judge.
| Trials and troubles from tho infirmitie2 of
our Hittufa constantly tssaf tbs and It In
duty as bcst we may To boar up under them,
and oycrcnmn Thorn ifin our power. Some
thing must DO expected from tho parties
themselves to overcome their domestic diff
cnltics IL is not every family feud declared
| by husband, or wife, to be insurpOrtable.
that will authorize II divorce. It IL In the
relation should not DO dissolved except
upon weighty and well established rea-
SOUS. Tho record before u.s. we do not
think, presents siIch reason.
1t is therefore ordered that the Judgment
OF tho District Court 10 nnnulled and re-
VcrScd.
II is further ordered that this suit DO dis
missed ut plaintiffs cost.