The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1890-03-13
A DIVORCE SUIT.
FROM WAKE COUNTY--POINT
ON WHICH THE SUIT FAILED.
Facts Necessary for Procuring Divorce
in North CarOlina--OpiniOn by
the Supreme Court.


the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has just rendered
an opinion in the case of Jackson VS..
Jackson from Wake county.
This was an action for divorce brought
by Cornelia A. r. Jackson against her
husband, Daniel Jackson
In view of the great discussion which
is now going on in this country on the
subject Of divorce, the CHRONICLE be-
lleves that the particulars in this case
will be found interesting. They are in
complete as to the final issue of such
case, but they will serve to illustrate to
a considerable degree the conditions
under which divorce may be had in
North Carolina.
Cornelia Jackson presented in her
complaint the following
First. That she was lawfully married
to Daniel Jackson about A. D. 1915.
Second. That up to few years ago
had lived with him in comparative peace
and quiet doing her duty faithfully as
a wife and mother.
Third. That since his severe sickness
(about 1884 he has become in meas
ure lntirm, and in consequence became
violently jealous of her, and began to
treat her cruelty and barbarously, so as
to endanger her life frequently at
night, when no other person in the
house was awake, threatening to mash
her brains out, and that in consequence
she was afraid to retire to rest at night
Fourth. That recently he maliciously
turned her out of doors, and refused to
allow her to return to her home, threat
ening that if she did return he would
kill her.
Fifth. That the tract Of land on
which Jackson now resides, and from
which he turned her out, is her separate
estate; and she also has some articles of
personal property now in his possession;
that his annual income Is about $500.
. On these charges she sued for a
divorce.
Jackson denied all the charges except
the first two. He further says in his
I, defence:
'That some time during the summer
Of 1886 his wife did go from home to a
certain place he was opposed to her 60
ing to--a certain church of which he
had been member, which church had
been recently removed from the old
place against his will, and after it's re-
moval he did not wish his wife to g(
10 there, and he was angry when she die
go; but he soon got over his anger an(
e tried to get her to come back to he
home and live as she had done for 81
many years, promising to treat her kind
ly and furnish her to go where sh
pleased and come when she chose. 81,
offered to divide his lands with her anc
u give bond that he would in nowise i'm
l. pose on her; for two years past she ha6
! not demeaned herself towards hin
as wife should.
That he has no i'll feeling towards hi
10 wife, but is earnestly desirous that sh
. should return to her home; that she ha
70 been to his house once since she left
" and offered to come and live with hin
nr if he would enter into bond in tn
~ sum of two hundred dollars not to mis-
ot treat her, which he then and ther
of agreed to-; but he believes that she wa
. dissuaded from coming back to be
n home by other parties; and he believe
,is that, if she was left free from persuaslo
y. Of others, she would return and liy
90 with him.
~ ~ That he is cripple, ur
~ able to walk without crutch, which b
al has had to use for thirty-six years; h
70 ~ is in the sixty fourth year of his age
~ He has no income beyond a suppol
80 from his farm, and last year his farl
ho 1ac did not pay expenses; is unable to wor
~ and has to depend on the labor of other
>AO 70 me n c,nnorf ont Of bic land ON
~ and bare support is all that it Wi
ne ,ie yield him, especially in the absence
zoo zoo his wife, he having to hire everythin
80 n done"
- - The case was heard before Jude
- 40 Armfeld who ordered divorce gran
~ ed, and that Jackson pay into the offit
W of the Clerk eff the Court the sum
o on fifty dollars, as alimony to the plaint
~ ~ up to that time.
,an 80 o,.ao,.oa +ho+ +bo nv;fo ho oIIo,
nk 10 ai:o o.uei.I 'ns o,, ~ w .;,.o
the one-third value and producti
power of the land during her life.
L Jackson took an appeal the Supren
Court which reversed the judgement
the lower court. The following is t.
go. substance of the opinion by Aver
Nc j:
No DdulCl UdCkSOu 3 COuuScl mONoS /
dismissal of the case because the fac
a' stated in the complaint made by t
r a wife are not sufficient to constitute
re- cause for action. The motion shou
ou be allowed. There was no evide1
~ tending to show that the wife had be
turned out of doors by her husba
more than six months before the acti
was brought. The petition for divo
rests solely upon the allegation IL
'"'e the husband became violently jealC
of her, and began to treat her crue
and barbarously SO as to endanger
has frequently threatening to m
her brains ont; and that in consequel
ln- she was afraid to retire to rest at mig
last It is not in compliance with the law
for such cases, to charge I'LL treatment &
,o,n orally in the complaint nor to ST
simply that the condition of the v
u was intolerable and her life burd
gov some by reason of the conduct of
his. husband toward her. 1t must apr
tim to the court from SPECIFIC allegati
for as to the treatment of the husband
1sac particular occasions; that he, with
the sufficient provocation on her part to
LIZ oil hon 1ODp1