The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1878-11-14
Divorce In Old Times and New.

| Diverce In Old Times and New.
DIVORCE existed in all ages at Rome,
and was always private act. For O
long time it was not abused by the
Romans, but toward the latter part OF
the Republic and under the Empire,
divorces became very common. Seneca
notices this laxity of manners; and
Juvenal gives a remarkable instance Of
q Roman matron, who is said to have
gone the round of eight husbands in
five years. Pompey divorced his wife
Mucia. Cicero speaks of Paula Valera
as being ready to serve her husband
with notice of divorce, on his return
from his Province. Cicero himself di-
v0rced his wife Terentia, after living
with her thirty years. The husband
generally took the keys from his wife,
put her out of his house, gave her back
her dowry and so dissolved the mar
riage. This might be done in the wife s
absence. Cicero divorced his wife Teren-
tia by letter.
The laws in the several Grecian
States regarding divorce were different,
and in some of them men were allowed
to put away their wives on slight occa-
sions. Among the Athenians, either
husband or wife might take the first
step: The wife might leave the hus-
band or the husband might dismiss the
wife. The Spartans seldom divorced
their wives. The Ephori fined Lysan-
der for repudiating his wife.
An Arab may divorce his wife on the
slightest occasion. So easy and so
common is the practice that Burck-
hardt assures us that he has seen Arabs
not more than forty-five years of age
who were known to have had fifty wives,
yet they rarely have more than one at
| u time.
BY the Mohammedan law a man NAV
divorce his wife orally and without any
ceremony; he pays her portion, gem
orally one-third of her dowry. He may
divorce her twice and take her again
without her consent, but if he put her
away by q triple divorce conveyed in
the same sentence, he cannot receive
her again until she has been married
and divorced by another husband.
BY the Jewish law it appears that a
wife could not divorce her husband, blu:
under the Mohammedan code, for
cruelty and some other causes, she NAV
divorce him.
Among the Hjndoos, and also among
the Chinese, husband may divorce his
wife upon the slightest ground, or even
without assigning any reason. She is
under the absolute control of her hus-
band.
The law of France, before the Revo-
luton. following the judgment of the
Catholic Church, held marriage to be
indissoluble; but during the early rev.
dictionary period divorce was permit
ted at the pleasure of the parties when
incompatibility of temper was alleged.
The Code Napoleon restricted this lib
erty. On the restoration of the Bour-
bons law was promulgated, 9Th May,
1916, declaring divorce to be abolished;
that all suits then pending for divorce,
for definite cause, should be for separa-
ton only, and that all steps then taken
for divorce by mutual consent should
be void; and such is now the law of
France.
The power of the Courts to grant
limited divorces is well settled in this
country. Cruel and inhuman treat
ment and abandonment are frequent
grounds of action. Austerity of tenn
per. sallies of passion, abusive lam
guage and mere indignities to the
moral character or reputation of his
wife, vulgar or harsh language, with
such epithets that deeply wound the
feelings and excite the passions. with
out any menace indicating violence to
the person, do not afford sufficient
grounds of divorce. If wife render
her husbands condition intolerable
and his life burdensome," or if her con-
duct is so violent and outrageous as to
render the proper discharge of the du-
ties of married life impossible, it is a
good ground of separation from her.
Such abuse or indignities offered by
the wife to the husband would not JUS
tify him in turning her out of doors;
he must show such cruel or barbarous
treatment or danger of his life as
would entitle him to divorce. Deser-
ton or abandonment by either husband
or wife is one ground for divorce: but
the desertion or abandonment must be
Intentional, or willful and malicious.
with an intent to renounce and disre-
gard the marriage relation. The re-
tusal of a wife to remove with her hus-
band to a foreign country is not willful
desertion. If a husband should 90
away and live apart from his wife it is
not considered desertion within the
meaning of the statutes of New Jer-
sey: The failure to supply the wife
with such necessaries and comforts as
are within the husbands circum-
stances, and thus by cruelty compell-
ing her to quit him, amounto to actual
aban donment and desertion. - Isaac
Van Wsukle, in Albany Lao Journal.