Los Angeles herald., 1892-07-30
FLEM|NG'S VIOLENT AMOUR
The Supreme Court Considers
He Was Cruel.
The Annie Peterson Incident the
Base Of the Opinion.
Defendants Appeal to the Higher Court
Decided against Him-A Decision
which Is Very Decided in
It's Language.

luBblCub6u ny ntuulo ~. 4 lClllug aEaluBL
her husband, Rev. Samuel Fleming, OF
Pasadena, have been settled at last by a
decision Of the Supreme court in which
the decree of the Superior court of Los
Angeles county, made by Judge McKin-
ley in granting divorce, is confirmed
Rev. Samuel J. Fleming, it will be re-
membered, took an appeal to the Su-
preme court. but that body of jurists
stood with the lower court, as shown by
the accompanying opinion.
The Supreme judges revive the story
of the divorce which created such wide
spread scandal in local church circles,
The court says: This is an action for
divorce on the ground of extreme cru
city. The material allegations of the
complaint are as follows: Plaintiff
further alleges that on the evening of
March IL, 1891, plaintiff and defendant
left their home in South Pasadena to at
tend lecture in Los Angeles; they left
their infant child at home in care of An
ME Peterson, a domestic after the lec-
ture plaintiff and her sister went to the
house of friend in Los Angeles to
spend the night, and defendant returned
to their said home and found Annie
Peterson in bed and asleep.
That defendant then and there en-
tered the bed of Annie Peterson and at
tempted to have sexual intercourse with
her; that be tried to persuade her that
it would not be wrong for him and her
to have sexual intercourse together, and
he remained in bed with Annie Peter
son for upwards of two hours before re-
firing to his own room : that this con-
duct on the part of defendant has re-
ceived great publicity by reason of a
complaint having been made by Annie
Peterson before a magistrate in the city
of Los Angeles, charging defendant with
having at said time and place assaulted
her with intent to commit rape; that
afterwards said defendant came to plain
tiff and threatened to turn her out up
on the world penniless unless she would
help him to keep the said Annie Peter
son from prosecuting him on said COM
plant; that this conduct on part of de-
fendant, and the publicity which has
been given to it, has caused plaintig
grievious mental suffering, thereby i'm
pairing her health"
The defendant demurred to the COM
plant on the ground it did not state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action, the demurrer was overruled, de-
fendant offered no further defense to the
action, the court, upon the proofs
taken, found the facts alleged in
complaint to be true, and judg-
ment was entered in favor Of
the plaintiff, dissolving the bonds of
defendant appealed, and now insists
that the demurrer ought to have been
sustained, because the facts alleged are
insufficient to support finding of ex-
treme cruelty. Our statute provides
that extreme cruelty is the infliction of
grievous bodily injury or grievous mem
tai suffering upon the other by one
party to the marriage.
Courts and elementary writer's have
found it impossible to define with pre-
cruelty, and it would be idle for us to
review the decisions cited, because they
are as variant as the language of the
several statutes upon which they are
founded. The habits and dispositions of
different married persons vary 30 much
that 1t is impossible to lay down any
universal rule for the determination of
what indignities should be regarded as
grounds of divorce under the statute.
Among savages the conduct imputed to
this defendant might not be regarded as
reprehensible. The legislature has me-
cessarily employed general words, and
left each case to be determined accord
ing to its own peculiar circumstances by
the good sense and judgment of courts
and juries. "Whether in any given
case there has been inflicted
this grievous mental suffering, is
a pure question of fact, to be
deduced from all the circumstances of
each particular case, keeping always in
view the intelligence, apparent refine
ment and delicacy of sentiment of the
complaining party" Barnes VS..
Barnes, filed June IS, 1922
We cannot, as matter of law, saw
that the conduct charged in this COM
plant did not inflict upon the plaintiff
grievous mental suffering. The court
below has found as fact that it did,
and it is the province of that court and
not our own, to determine the facts.
The evidence is not in the record, and
the finding is conclusive. We presume
the court considered the character of
the parties, and was guided by the
statute and it's sense Of right and
justice, and not by any chivalric senti-
ment, in awarding decree to the
plaintiff.
The attorneys for appellant attempt to
excuse his conduct on the ground that
the acts imputed to him were not will
fully or deliberately done to annoy or
vex the plaintiff; that he did
not suppose any publicity would
be given to them. or that his
wife would be told about them; but the
law will not condone violation of The
marriage obligation on any such
grounds. His conduct being voluntary,
and inconsistent with marital integrity,
it is conclusively presumed that he in
tended the natural and ordinary effect
thereof upon his wife. He, better than
anyone else, is supposed to know the
effect disclosure of his acts would
have upon her; he took the chance of
being found out, and must suffer the
consequences.
His threat to turn his wife out upon
the world penniless, unless she insisted
IN saving him from prosecution for his
offense, did not indicate any contrition
on his part, or that his consideration for
the feelings of plaintiff would be any
greater in the future than it had been
in the past"
The opinion was written by Justice
iPattison, and is concurred in by JUS
! tices Harrison and Garoutte.
The horrors of the kitchen overcome BY
Dyspepsia and Liver Complaint.
Is 1t not worth the small price of 75c to free
yourself OF every symptom of these distressing