St. Paul daily globe., 1891-04-30
DIVORCE is REFUSED.
ALI the Warner Scandal Publicity
Comes to Naught.


The action for divorce brought by
Mrs. Sadie K. Warner against Lucien
Warner terminated Yesterday by Judge
Brill refusing to grant Mrs. Warner a
separation. The domestic relations of
the Warner household created a COM
motion i'll the community, and par
ticularly i'll the congregation of
Plymouth church, of which they
we're both members, and Mr.. Warner
was a high official. The court, in its
findings of facts, speaks of the former
marriage of each party and their inter
marriage; that Mr. Warner had agreed
to give his wife $50 month in lieu of
her pension of $25 per month; that they
frequently Qualreled and used harsh
language toward each other; that she
made unreasonable demands upon him
| for money; that he pushed her out of
| bed after prOvocation, but without Suffi-
| cient justification. The cellar way in
| cident, the buggy scene and the Gaming
were referred to as being unjuStified.
| The former suit and its dismissal were
| referred to, and it was found that the
| cruelty of the first years of the married
| life had been condoned by an agreement
to live together again. The court pro-
ceedS in the following language:
The Courts Finding.
The evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the
! court that defendant inflicted any violence
upon plaintiff, or was guilty of any cruelty
| toward her, subsequent to the agreement
| aforesaid. The issues raised by the pleaoings
| regarding the condition and amount of de-
PENDANTS property have not been liligated.
! Save as aforesaid. the allegations of the
| pleadings have not been established.
| Gas conclusion, ii is determined that the
| plaintiff is not entitled to divorce. Judg-
ment may be entered accordingly.
After reciting the findings of facts
| the court attached memorandum to
the order filed yesterday which is as
! follows:
A Sad State of Affairs.
The condition OF affairs disclosed by the
| evidence in this case is greatly 10 be deplor-
| ed. Almost from the beginning of their
married life there have been disputes. fault
| finding and quarrels, and sometimes the
parties have come to blows. At the time of
| their marriage both were of mature years /;
| both had been married before: the tastes and
! habits of life of each had become fixed. and
/ ii was to have been expected that each would
| appreciate the necessity of exercising for
| bearance in dealing with the prejudices
| and peculiarties of the other But
| fOrbearanee does not seem TO have
| been a marked characteristic of either
! of the parties. Each has too often magntfied
| the shortcomings of the other; and the result
| has been unhappiness and failure. 1t would
| not be difficult to find that the defendant was
! narrow and petty in his reckoning with his
| wife; that he was guilty of gross breach of
| propriety in retaining his former sister-in-
| law in the house when her presence was
properly distasteful to his wife; that he was
overcritical at times of his wife's conduct
| and that his conduct towards her was often
| lacking in gallantry and tende rness; but
| while such q state of affairs might excite our
| sympathy for the wife. it would not warrant
| the granting of a divorce. IL it did the di-
| vorce courts would be overrun with cases,
| andmarriage would be mere matter of con-
| venience. Something must be conceded to the
| weakness of human nature and some ills
| must be endured But whatever criticism of
defendants conduct may be made cannot
| avoid the conclusion that the married life of
these parties
Might Have Been Peaceful
| and reasonably happy if plaintiff had
| chosen to have it SO. She was ready to meet