New-York tribune., 1885-07-21
THE COURTS.
THE FosDICK DIVORCE CASE.

A DIVORCE GRANTED ON THE GROUND OF Exrhh"H
CRUELTY.
Much interest was shown in the recent triai
of tho suit for divorce, brought in Rhode Island py WIS
Jennie p Fosdick against Charles b. Fosoick' Oh '''
CITY, Many Incorrect statements printed about tne
case which did much injustice to Mrs. FosdicR. lho ~
cison Of the complete triumph for her' tne ue
fence being defeated every ground She alleged eA
treme cruelty the ground for the divorce anu .ho
court granted her petition. Following is the decision
In full
Supreme Court Rhode Island Jennie p Fosdicn W;
Charles Fosdck Dariee ;,ym, S ISIs ersey The re-
spondent makes three defences, namely ntst tnae .o
charge not true second tnat ,ao P bsr netion
domclled nhabitant of this state. and third that the
fr ad by the rs
two deiences arc questions Of fact. We think It is
enough S. to sxdenss ei se s be- DECIDED
Of the petitioner. The fact 6. that the liberal ans
SitSr's OIL Se which led the petitioner
here Is certainly calculated TO awaken suspicion Du.'
eed habtant s the state II bondfde,
for purpose OF making the state her permanent nome
hor former home in New-York.
We will therefore pass to the consideration OF tne
to and embodied in the deed of separation Iep,
ruary IA. 1888. after the treatment comPahlnea he.
received, and when the parties already living
apart. The validity of the deed is not questioned IT,
for the wife have all been paid agreed The respond
ent contends that In these circumstances the pettioc
s obligated keep the articles ON her part IN sooa
faith, and that nasmuch as they contemplate no. ~ @
must be taken be complete bar TO the peti'ion. III
suppnrt of his position he ctes squres Vs. squics,
So VT COS, :. G. 3S, Am. Repts. 6os which S noiu9
that when articles Of separation nave Deeh sg, ecu
to fully pcrormedby the husband divorce VIII no' M
be granted a the OF tho wife for cruel treatment ro
ceived before agreement was made Inc autnority
which is cited by the court Ia Squires agt squlres ~
support OF the decision IL Mathews agt: Mntnewsi
swab and Trst, l6l, and Williams ag Wiins' 81 T -,
! n = pt 8 D. IS. L. H. 1 Prob. and Div l7S Inc
doctrine OF tic however IL not that artces
of separation are per bar to divorce for causes pre-
yously existing and known TO the petitioner Dut ony
and other circumstances evidence to show that tne
petitioner IL prosecuting tho petition IN soou ah
and Ia therefore entitled TO the favorable consuera
ton of the court With the exception OF equlres as
soures ali the cases. both English and American are 10
the effect that such articles are not per Sc =, ~
bar Beeby agt. Beeby, l Hagg. Il. c. X
42i Nash agt. Nash, Ib AZ: Anderson agt. An
dersop Edw Ch. $50; Rogers agt Rogers. Pago olL
+ a. agt IT, c.. 80 Mer.40l; Kremme burg agt kremmol-
burg so Md. 553557; Wilson agt Wilson, 40 Iowa 80
been thought To hold otherwise Is explained IN D. W
agt H. O. supra We think Of no ground ON when sucn
articles can held TO he bar unless they can DO heiu
10 rest en- an I'm piled condition that tho marital relation
shall continue. Notwithstanding tho separation Bat
any such Implication warrantcdl We think not where
the agreement Ia only agreement Tor separation win
prov for the Injured party such an agreement
not Inconsistent with divorce for divorce IS only moro
absolute separation IL Is reasonable TO suppose that
such condition IL II had been Intended, would have
been expressed II follows that tho agreement what
ever effect might givo to IT, fit were suoest 10 suen
condition. Is no bar, and that the divorce, the cause
alleged being proved must be granted true copy Oh
the opinion. - "]>""' '-'