The sun., 1897-10-12
UNSAFE TO CURSE A WIFE.
VERBAL OUTRAGE MAYBE A LEGAL
GROUND OF SEPARATION,
Justice Pryor Awards n separate Maintenance

Justice Pryor Awards Separate Maintenance
the WIre of q. ,. FItEpntrIck, who,
Mo Says. Rcqulted vcrbni Crucitics nnd
False Accusations with Angelic Gentieness
Catharine Fitzpatrick has secured from Jus.
tice Pryor OF the Supreme Court a decree of sop
aration from Charles ]. Fitzpatrick son of Jcre-
miah Fitzpatrick, millionaire glass importer.
The opinion seems to go a step further than tho
recent decision OF Justice Smyth, who held that
to warrant a separation there must be such
threats of violence as to induce reasonable APP
prehcnson of bodily injury which would render
1t unsafe and improper for the injured party to
live with the other. Justice Pryor says:
"a judgment of separation does not affoct tho
integrity of the marriage relation, but merely
discharges the complaining spouse from the
duty OF cohabitation. II Is not tho law of New
York that to such judgment in favor OF wifc
actual or apprehendod physical injury Is an in
dispensable condition. BY the terms of tho
statute cruel and inhuman treatment justifcs
q sentence of scparation and that inhumanity
may be evinced and cruelty inflicted by verbal
outrage as well as by bodily abuse Is q fact OF
human experience and Of judicial recognition.
Whatever the rule elsewhere and at other
times in this jurisdiction at the present day
meek submission and patient resignation are not
a wite's sole resource under a brutality that
shrinks only from physical violence; but against
afford her commensurate redress.
Upon proof. therefore, of such angry. contume
lious and degrading re eproachcs by husband, APP
piled maliciously and without prOvocation, as
makes his presence an intolerhb.e grievance,
destructive of the happiness that is the end OF
the ma trimonial association, a wife is entitled
without sacrifice OF her right to support, to be
relieved from the humiliating and tOrmenting
companionshp Upon this principle Judgment
is awarded to the plaintiff. Bva preponderance
OF credible testimony it is established that re-
peatedly and in wrath the defendant addressed
prOfhne and ODprDbriOuS language to tho plNin-
tin. denouncing her as cur, a worm and
q devil. whom he consigned 10 hell; and that
under circumstances of peculiar Rtrocily he ma
liconsly and unjustifably impugned her con-
juEal fidelity. On the trial, indeed he denied
that he had ever accused her of unchastity, and
cynical insinccrity in the face OF answer
plainly imputing to her habitual wantonness
and systematic immortality.
- Were these instances OF misbchavior casual
and exceptional they might claim some indul-
gcnce on tho score of intrmity OF temper, but,
| the conduct of the defendant toward the plain
| tiff with uniform tenor of deliberate cruelty
and inhumanity. and appear, as by implication
he confcsses, TO have been directed to tho end of
| driving her TO separation. Indeed, his vindic-
| tivCnrss did not cease with her departure but
after her escape he subjected her to the nfamy
| OF public advertisement as a recreant to mar
| riage duty, to whom no tradcsmen might safely
supply tho necessities life. All these indignites
| the defendant inflicted upon woman whom he
| knew TO be of delicate health, upon u wife who
| requited his crucltics with angelic gentlcness,
| to bear reluctant testimony. Were bodily harm,
as the effect Of defendants treatment, requisite
to the plaintiffs case, 1t is abundantly apparent
| in the evidence"