, 1892-07-08
THREE DECISIONS.
CLARKE COUNTY.

INotice-An decisions of the supreme
court will appear il. THE DAILY and WEEK
LY TRIBUNE.
Emma Blurock. appellant. VS.. George E.
Blurock, respondent; No 504, filed July
6, 1892. From Clarke county.
Considering all the testimony in this
case we think we would not be justified in
disturbing the verdict of the trial court.
Counsel for appellant cites the case of Lee
v Lee, lately decided by this court, and
asserts that this court is now placed in a
state where it must either reverse its late
decision on the question of cruelty, or &C
cept that of the inferior court. This court
having the testimony in both cases before
1t, finds no parallel whatever, and we are
ready to re-atirm the sentiment expressed
in Lee V. Lee that sit is hard to conceive
how husband could be more cruel to a
wife not entirely devoid of all sensibility
and womanly instincts than to persistently
and falsely, and without Just cause, accuse
her Of unchastity, especially to or before
other persons" But we are unable to
conclude from the testimony in this case
that the defendant was guilty of any such
conduct. At all events the evidence on
that point was very conflicting, and the
court who saw the witnesses on the stand,
and noted their manner Of testifying
evidently gave as much credenCe to
the denials of the husband as he did to the
dSs6TI!OnH OF Gne VIE, anu we CANNOT say
that he was not justified in so doing. The
conduct of the husband evidently was not
always praisewOrthy and sometimes bOr-
dered on the coarse and brutal, but his
conduct towards his wife was evidently
stimulated by his jealousy. This would
be no justification if there were no grounds
for jealousy; but we are inclined to think
with the judge who tried the cause that in
tentlonally or unintentionally she gave
her husband some grounds for apprehen-
sion. A woman who has a true apprecia-
ton OF the marriage relation will not be
found keeping company with man of
whom her husband is Jealous, and of which
fact she is cognizant; and it seems from
the testimony of plaintiffs sister, Mrs.
Jaggy, that it was pretty well understood
that the defendant and Hayden were not
on good terms at the time that Hayden
was escorting plaintiff down the street. So
explicit, in fact, was this understanding
that Hayden, instead of openly escorting
the plaintiff to her husbands buggy where
the husband was, stopped on the corner,
and allowed the wife, in company with her
sister, to approach her husband without
his escort.
The whole testimony shows that the de-
fendant was jealous of Hayden, that the
plalnt1H knew it, and that her conduct
tended to excite rather than to allay his
apprehensiOns, and since the separation it
seems from the admissions of the plaintiff
that there has been some talk, although
she says it was in the way of joke, by her
folks about her marrying Hayden. And
in answer to a question by the court if
when she and Hayden were alone the sub
ject had ever been mentioned, she replied
mot that l remember" This was an
evasive answer, and oubtless was so con
sidered by the court. She knew whether
they had talked about it or not, and if they
had not she would unequiyocally have
said no.
There were many other charges made by
the plaintiff in her direct testimony but in
the light of the cross examination they lost
much of their force and under the circum-
stances of the case we think the judgment
of the lower court should be affirmed, and
it is so ordered.
DUNBAR, ].
We concur: Anders, c. j.. Hoyt, j.;
Scott, j.; Stiles, ].