St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-01-28
SHE DOESN'T GET 1T,
Mrs. KessIer Denied a Divorce
Judge Lochrenss Reasons.

Judge LOchren'S Reasons.
Judge Lochren yesterday filed decision
denying the suit for divorce OF Emma l..
Kessler VS.. Chas. q. Kessler. The judge
holds that the charges OF the plalntlf as TO
the defendants drunkenness and cruelty are
true as set forth, and that he has been in
the habit of drinking intoxicating liquors at
times to the extent Of inebriety, but is not
an habitual drunkard; that he has on sew
eral occasions struck and slapped the
plaintiff. and has been guilty of such con-
duct towards her as would have been cruel
and inhuman had the plaintiff herself been
free from fault, and had she not provoked
him to such treatment. The plaintiff also
has drank wine and beer daily and has fire.
quently struck and beaten the defendant
and has conducted herself unbecomingly
against his commands, frequently doing
such acts as had natural tendency to pro-
woke him to commit acts of violence upon
her. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled
to divorce, and the action is dismissed.
The court finds that Mr.. Kessler does not
own any real estate in Hennepn county,
and has personal property to the value of
$1,000, but is indebted to various persons in
sums exceeding SO, 900.
A CHAPTER ON DIVORCES.
In his memorandum of the decision, Judge
Lochren says:
Divorces are Of evil tendency, and should
only be granted where the right to the relief
Is reasonably clear. They may be allowed for
cruel and inhuman treatment, where such
treatment has become practically unbearable,
or dangerous to the life or health of the party
complaining of such treatment. But wife
complaining of such treatment, if herself
habltually aggressive and guilty ofconducthay
ing the natural tendency to provoke and bring
her the treatment of which she complains,
.o5 10 TO
is one who drinks to inebriety, ordinarily,
when means and opportunity permit. The
defendant, keeping saloon, had constant
opportunity, and, although the evidence
shows that he drank considerably and was at
times drunk. still it appears that ordinarily
he was able to attend to his business, and at
times abStained entirely from liquors. He
can therefore hardly be called an habitual
drunkard, but even If he were, the plant
iii would not be entitled to
divorce upon that ground. She knew him
well for long time before their marriage,
during which his habits as to drinking were
the same as they have since continued. She
testities that he was drunk when they were
married. Since then she has made no effort
to reform him, but by her example and con-
duct, frequently drinking with him, and daily
drinking herself, often openly at his bar, has,
so far as her influence could affect him, kept
him in the same course. The evidence shows
that she freQuented his bar-room contrary to
ms wishes and commands, and drank and be-
haved with little regard to decorum in the
presence of the persons congregated at the
place; that she often assaulted him, and that
there was much in her conduct tending TO dis
satisfy and exaSperate him toward her, and
to induce the treatment of which she COM
plains. While his conduct and treatment of
her has been blameworthy, still, before seeking
a divorce she should try the effect upon him
of proper wifely conduct, decorum and
obedience on her part.