The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-19
OPINION OF THE COURT PER
JUDD, C. j.

This is bill for separation brought |
by the wife against her husband.
After several hearings in which a
great deal of testimony was taken,
Mr.. Justice Bickerton who heard
the case fled his decision, dated 5th
September last, in which he decreed
q separation of the parties from bed
and board forever and awarded the
custody of the minor children to the
plaintiff and alimony for her and
their support of $50 month, etc.
The decision is as follows:
"The petition in this matter sets
sforth that the parties were married
sfby the Reverend J. A. Cruzan on
"26th March, 1888; that petitioner
sthas had by respondent two daugh-
"ters now aged seven and four years
respectively; that respondent dur
Sing the last year has excessively and
sshabitually ill-treated petitioner, by
"calling her foul and filthy names,
nby accusing her of adultery with
amany different men; by habitually
"using vulgar, profane and obscene
''language in her presence and In
Gtthe presence of their children; by
sGusing threats and menaces to the
6petitioner and threatening that he
"would take her life; by assaulting
ssher with his fists and knocking
sher down, by turning her out in
stthe streets with her two children
sat night; by many and divers acts
"uf violence, cruelty and abuse.
"That petitioner is in distress and
sshas not money with which to
sssupport herself and her said two
nchildren, nor of means with which
"to pay the costs of these proceed
sings. That respondent has real
"estate in Honolulu of the value of
",b0ut five thousand dollars, and
"has salary of $4,000 per month.
"Aud prays for decree of separa-
"tion from bed and board forever,
ssfor alimony, for the custody and
ucontrol of the children, and for
ssittorneys fees and costs.
"The answer admits the marriage,
sGthe birth of the two children, aud
ssdpnips the alleged ill treatment,
strespondent claiming that he mas
Sideways treated her with kindness
sand consideration and provided
ssfor her aud their children to the
"best of his ability that plaintiff
Gsis possessed of an evil temper and
stviolent disposition, and at times
"has used abusive and vile langu-
cage to HIM. That about June OF
"Juiy 1890, he began to have reason
sto believe that she was unfaithful
sto him that in July, 1890, plaintiff
stdeserted his house and went to
sther mothers house but returned
"to his home in few days (; that
Gin November, 1890, she again left
"his house taking the children
"with her and went to her mothers
"house. Respondent further de-
Enies that he turned them out into
athe streets, and alleges that in
"June, 1891, while he was absent
stfrom hone plaintiff deserted hi-
"home taking the children and
sssailed for California, that she
tscarried away many articles Of
s'furniture and personal property
athat between June, 1890, and June
1881, he has reason to believe tina
son various occasions she committed
"adultery with one Walker tina
che was so exasperated by plaintiff
ssthat on several occasions he useC
"strong and forcible language t.
'sher that she has told him he wa!
Hnot the father of her children anC
"threatened to poison him, an(
"that he has been in fear of hi
"life; that he did lay his hand
"upon plaintiff about October, 1890
"when she struck him and assaulted
chin with knife, that he did
ato prevent further harm that h.
'shas frequently forgiven her ant
ttaken her back. That it is useles
"for them to attempt to live to
"gether again and that she is not
'sfit and proper person to have tn
scare and custody of their sale
"children. And prays that deere
'tof separation forever be entered il
s'his favor, and that the care an,
"custody of the children be give
"to him, and that plaintiffs praye
"for alimony be denied.
''The testimony in this case
every voluminous and conflicting
"there is deliberate falsehood o
"One side or the other. 1t is
"great shame that this matte
'scoufd not have been settled by
"mutual separation, instead c
"dragging all this scandal befor
"the court and the public. Bot
s'partieS are anxious for q separs
"tiun and both want the decree
"their favCr. 1t is clear to me tina
"the decree must be granted /
"favor of the plaintiff, or the pet
"tion must be dismissed. I kno,
'Eof no authority under the statut
''by which the Court could orde
ga decree in favor of the responder
''on his answer, it not purportin
''to be a cross-bill. Where h
''avaIs himself of the statute an
"sets up as justification the il
'conduct of the plaintiff, see sectio
''l337 of the Compiled Laws, whic
Hreads: In any suit brought fC