Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-10-27
THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT
urDGE ADAMS OPINION UPON
DOMESTIC OBTIG ATIONS.

Senaration and DivOTee-Acts that jus
tify These Steps-The Kent Case-De-
cision of the Court-An Allowance OF
AIimony Granted and the Respondent
to Pay Counsel Fees,
Last Wednesday morning the superior
Court of nathan county met in chambers,
with Hon. A. z. Adams, Judge presiding,
when the case of Ellen Kent against Ezra
H. Kent on petition for an allowance OF
temporary alimony was heard. The par
ties have been married something less
than two years, and the petitioner IN
her testimony alleged that the defendant
had repeatedly abused her. Inc delenu-
ant made certain admissions showing
that what had occurred between hlmsen
and the petitioner proceeded from mere
family marTels. and that he had mani
tested penance, made promises OF Delter
behavior. and had sought to induce the
Detitionpr to return and assume the duties
81 her position. The petitioner, accord
ING to her evidence, did return, but the
peace of the family circle was repeatedly
disturbed, it was said, 10y the defendant,
SO that the petitioner finally separated
from him and filed her prayer for tempo
rarv alimOny. An allowance was granted
by the court. The following is the opin-
ion of Judge Adams in the case, and Is
given, inasmuch as it is matter OF pub
lie interest, and the sentiments expressed
i'm connection with the law on the ques-
ton are pertinent at time when many
persons entertain the idea that marriage
is merely Il contract, having no sacred
obligations beyond what any other con-
tract of a civil nature imposes.
The complainant has filed her bill
against the defendant for permanent all
mony. alleging that "she and her husband
are now living separately, and are BONA
fde in state of separation, and that there
is no action for divorce pending between
them" Her present application is for
counsel fees and temporary alimony To be
allowed during the tendency OF TINS SUIT
This application is to be determined by
the same general rules that govern mo-
tions for temporary alimOny preferred in
actions of divorce. 1t is addressed to the
sound discretion of the Chancellor. The
merits of the case, though not necessarily
involved. may be inquired into. Were it
made clearly and certainly to appear that
the complainants cause was without
merit. 1t would be the duty of the Chan
cellor to refuse the application; but If the
case, i'm any view of II, he at all doubtful.
temporary alimOny should be allowed UNI
less the compliments own estate is am
ME. In most cases consideration of the
general merits of the controversy will
doubtless weigh in determining the
amount of alimOnV.
The respondent here denies that there is
"A .sseparatiOn"-Such a separation as
is contemplated by the statute as the
basis of claim for alimony. There was
quarrel. parting, but, as soon as the
heat of passion was over, there was am
offer of reconciliation on his part. He
haf nffn n N "
one. that it is now subsisting, and that
the separation is involuntary as far as he
is concerned.
What will Justify wife in separating
from her husband? What will Justify
her i'm maintaining separation which
he has caused, but which he
desires to terminateg Clearly any act on
his part, that constitutes valid ground for
a divorce, constitutes likewise valid
ground for a separation. She need not
sue for a divorce. She may elect simply
to live separately and claim alimony. If
the act does not furnish ground for Il
divorce, can it furnish ground for a
separation at her election? An answer
to this question is not necessary for the
determination of this motion. Here it is
claimed that the separation was Origi-
nally at the instance of the respondent.
In such case. we do not think that his
RECOMMENDATIONS
answer to her claim for alimony, though
the evidence may disclose no ground for
divorce. 1t may or it may not be defense
to this suit. The jury must determine. If
the Jury conclude, in view Of this offer.
and of all the facts and circumstances of
the case that there is not sufficient cause
for separation, it Will be their duty TO
deny this claim Of alimony; if they con-
clude otherwise, they Will allow 1t. \
man may not arbitrarily drive his wife
from his home and his protection to-day,
and summon her back tomorrow. She is
not to be made the victim Of unreasOning
passion or tyrannical caprice. On the
other hand, the separation of man and
wife should not occur except for grave
reasons. When separation ensues as the
result of a sudden quarrel, slight circum-
stances should not stand III the way Of a
reconciliation. There should be mutual
forgiveness and forbearance, and an
honest effort to adjust domestic differ
ences The law does not favor divorces
or separations. Its policy is to build up
the institution of marriage; to strengthen
its supports and to enforce its obliga-
tions. Not for slight causes can the
duties which it imposes he set aside.
otherwise, it would differ i'm no respect
from a meretricious union, an association
for convenience, to be formed and to be
severed as within or passion might sug-
gest.
Marriage is a contract, it is true; bu t
not an ordinary contract. In its religious
aspect, it is sacrament. In its political
aspect, it is a social institution. In the
proper UbseI vance Of the responsibilities
and duties that flow from the relation,
society has an immediate interest.
In determining the amount of Temporal
ry alimOny, regard should be had to the
circumstances of the parties; 10 the means
of the husband, his ability to earn liy-
ing: the means of the wife, and, in many
cases, to the causes that have led to the
separation. The wife should he placed at
no disadvantage. The weakness and de-
pendence of her state should be consider
ed. She should be amply protected. On
the other hand, care should be taken but
no encouragement be afforded to the in
stitution of suits of this character from
mercenary or other improper motives.
In this case the husbands means are
quite limited. lie has real estate worth
about $4,000, but most of its value is in
land that is unproductive. He has three
housewives in one and receives from the
other two gross rental of $50 per month.
He has a city bond, notes and stock aggre.
eating 81 ,325. and some furniture. He is
a machinist-dOes not now work at his
trade but should do SO. His earning
capacity is diminished, however, by age
and bad health, it is claimed He is 81.
The complainant owns two houses which
yield her about $50 per month. She has
$3.50 in bank. She is young Sand APP
parently in vigorous health, and should
contribute somewhat to her own support.
We consider, too, the expressed desire of
the respondent to have his wife live with
HIM and his pending offer to that effect.
In view of all the facts and ciTcum-
stances, we direct that the respondent
pay to the complainant on the first of
November and on the first day of each
month thereafter, until the further
order of this court. the sum of $40 for her
temporary alimOnv; and that the respond
ent do pay to the solicitors of complain
ant on said LIST of November. the sum of
$50, and on the 10Th day of March, 1884,
the further sum of $50, as counsel fees in
this suit.
We cannot conclude without expressing
the hope that these parties may adjust their
unfortunate differences and renew their re-
lations as husband and wife. The evidence
discloses no grave coniugal offense COM
mitted by either-nOthing that will
authorize a dissolution of the marriage
bonds-nothing that can relieve either
from the solemn marriage vows. Both
are at fault. The quarrel was as absurd
in its origin as it has been deplorable in
its results. The husband is reprehensible
highly sO-fOr his language and his de-
pertinent towards his wife. The lady,
doubtless, regrets the harsh words and
the displays of passion which were born
of momentary passion. Let there be mu-
tuaI fOrgiveness-less temper and more
concession on both sides. Let these par
ties come together and renew their hon
Orablp estate of matrimOnV hearing in