New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-05-10
The OOURTS.
NO DIVORCE FOR MRS. DE NELL.

JUSTICE RUMsEY DECIDES THAT HER HUSBANDS
CONDUCT WAS NOT CRUEL
Justice Rumsey, in the Supreme Court, dis
missed yesterday the suit for limited divorce brought
ny Mrs Florence NJ De Nell against her husband Henry
A. De Nell and declared also that the countecharges OF
nfdenty put forward by Mr.. De Nell against his wife
without foundation. The costs Of the litigation are
placed upon Mr. De Nell.
Mrs. De Nell charged that Mr. De Nell after their
marriage in 1869. began TO treat her cruelty and con-
tnued doing while they living in Colorado and
subsequently in Dresden and other cities OF Germany
switzerland, where they lived until Mrs De Nell
ted from her Dresden home in 1881. The early mel
dents OF their married troubles Justice Rumsey
considers Of little importance. lie holds that the EVIL
dence does show that Mr. De Nell AZ any time adj
dicted excessive indulgence strong drink. II not
to be denied that he did give to ouburss Oftemper
and that times he harsh and IN his treat
OF his wife. His behavior in his family was properly
characterized by one OF the witnesses petty tyranny
But there personal violence toward his wife.
There a failure 20 specify any acts Mr. De Mes part
whchmay legally characterized cruel or brutal There
appears be only tho Justice in which Mr.
De Mel could be called guilty Of aDuse OF Mrs De
Mers parents. The impression OF Mr.. De Mes treat
ment Mrs Draper Mrs De Mels mothep s, TO Justice
Rumsey's mind, that he was undndy and uugentle-
manly toward her The treatment OF Mrs.
De Nell by Mr. De Nell = mother Is considered OF no i'm
pOrtance IN the As 10 the alleged purpose Of the
lunatic asylum I think the evidence OF Dr.. Zumpe
Is quite conclusive that such suggestion ever made
him. While Mr.. De Nell frequently INDUCED IN ns or
passion and by his constant supervision made himself at
dimes very disareeaJle TO hers while he severe, and
intentionally yet his conduct was not such az 10
create any apprehension OF personal violence or 10 cause
injury her health and for that reason she Is not en-
titled decree fer "A separation"
Justice Rumsey declares that Mr. De Mers charge
against his wife Of adultery, In his Dresden suit
Tor absolute divorce, cannot be held m
act OF cruelty against Mrs De Nell
since "the evidence such TO say the least war
ranted a reasonable IN thinking that the charge
might have been true DO not think that the charges
made either malciousy or In bad faith. But upon
the whole is very that the charges were not
sustained and that the plaintiff not guilty OF adultery
While her complaint has been dismissed, she has
succeeded IN by FAR the most important issue. Had
application for allowance TO meet this charge been
made by the plaintiff before trial, cannot doubt u
would have been granted as though she were
defendant in such action. think
that who has been called upon here 10 defend
her honor and has defended IT, should be put IN the same
situation that issue IS concerned though sue
had been defendant IN an action IN which this was the
sole question tried and had succeeded As there had
aimonv during trial or counsel fees given Mrs
De Moi. Justice RUmsey grants her $500 Tor counsel
faps 4utIt he TAXA q