The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-12-22
THE COURTS.
Decision by Judge LarremOre in the
McSpedon Divorce Suit.
HASTY JUDGMENTS.
View Counterfeit Requiring the Attention
of Tradespeople.

Judge Larremorc OF the Court OF Common Pleas,
rendered yesterday brief but exhaustive opinion on
the motion recently argued before him In Special
Term 10 confirm the report Of the referee In the SUIT
brought by Hester McSpedon against Thomas McSpe-
don limited divorce. on tho ground Of crueian
inhuman treatment The defendant. rs 10 well KNOWN
has held q number ci prominent positions, being at
ono time President OF the Board Of Aldermen una ~
another Fire Marshal Various acts OF cruelty were
alleged. a detailed account OF which has been pub
llshed In tho HERALD. Tho referee found for the de
PENDANT stating that although the parties had lived
together unnappily and the defendant had been guty
OF somc acts or apparent cruelty yet that the sauna
vero brouQh about by dOminecring aud tantalz-
Ing manner ana conduct OF The plantn. upon THIS
state Of facts he recommended that II would DO n-
proner TO Interfere 10 the matter. Tho follow
ing is tho OPINION OF Judge LarTemoro connrmihg
me renort al The referee tho plaintiff brings
OF the statute fora limited divorce on Inc
ground of cruel and inhuman treatment on tue part
OF her husband, Tho defendant S1vitia or isga
cruelty as known the ecclesiastical courts, mas
now assumed lennito interpretation IN our Juris-
prudence. From description, merely negative, We
the term ..lt consists, says eminent Jurst, I'm
such conduct onc Of the parties as renders cohao-
tation dangerous to the physical safety Of Inc other
or creates the other reasonable apprehension
OF bodily narm as materially to interfere with the
prenenasd bodily injury is the gist OF the action
winch Court intcrtercs 10 prevent rather than 10
punish, an offence. perry , vs.: Perry. Page
nor occasional outbursts OF passion, that do
not threaten bodily harm, amount 70 legal
cruelty. Mason vs. Mason, ! Edw., ch. 27S.)
Il must be such as endanxers tho life or
health OF the complainant and renders Combination
unsafe. Perry Perry, supra) With this brief sum.
mary principles 70 guide nave carefully considered
the case IN dispute II presents peculiar and ex-
tracrdnary history OF mutual affection. violated conn.
dence, crnination and recrinnntion, disgusting az
tails, forgiveness ana iorDearancc, reconciliation and
an entire relapse either indifference or hatred II
seems almost impossible upon the evidence 10 lind
the posc Of equal and exact justice After thirty.
eight years Of married life, with three generations re-
siuin under rooi called upon TO view
u disrupted household and pass judgment upon tho
conflicting testimony OF its members IL IS
evident that both parties have boon at
tault This theory is fully established Dy tho
testimony Of their children and the attempt OF
the parties themselves TO effect reconciliatlon Tho
main acts OF cruelty tho defendants part have been
30 explained denied by his Witnesses as TO leave
reasonable doubt whether Or not tho plaintiff through
undue excitement missintcd exaggerated tho iacts
OF the case IL Is clearly established that she IS pos
scsscd OF u passionate nature and uncontrolled Will
OF tins tho undispulcd fact that she destroyed the
sounding board OF her piano 70 prevent her own
crunddaug htcr from using II Is an illustration The
evidence Is too voumin0us to parcuiarizc. but tho
conclusions OF the referee fully sustained by tho
proof and should be affirmed. Complaint dismissed