Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-04-17

nounced was to ascertain the depth Oh IFS
wife's affection, he must have been deep
" gra,ihed by her heavy mournlns' pul
viii always doubt her sincerity because
Of the promptness Of the divorce sul'
upon the discovery OF his practical joke
HE WORKED OK SUNDAY.
Weekday laziness, and Sabbath indus
tr.ousness. may cause a dissolution or t1e
marriage bond: Plaintiff says defendant
will not work during the week. but on
Sunday he puts on his old clothes ana
works hard all day; which conduct sore
~ grieye5 plaintiff
Throwing boots at ones wife ls not ohiy
unpleasant 10 the spouse, and highly IN
decorous, but may prove good ground ior
divorce. though the husband bee a poor
r,arksman: Defendant was guilty In
throwing, on the 18th Of october. although
the said boot did not hit the plaintiff
Pinching the nose Of ones wife is IN
very bad taste. and aside from tile pnysl-
cal pain inflicted. may result m the am
uu.ment of the marriage contract; De-
PENDANT pinched plaintiffs nose until II
became red thereby causing her morlIh-
cation and anguish"
II is generally believed that the head OF
the house is less conscientious i'm the mat
ter Of attendance upon divine worship
than IS his weaker half but if he does nor
want To encounter a divorce suit ne mad
better not attempt 20 heathenize MS VIE
and children, also as is proven by the iol'
lowing case: Defendant refused 10 let
the plaintiff or her children go 20 church
All the foregoing cases, as has peen
seen. refer 10 women who have sought
divorce on the ground Of cruelty There
|r. NrH. .FH UF..I D d.
from the year 1861 20 1850. 4 man loses
much OF his opinions Of the lordly super
iority OF his sex as he realizes that so
many wives have had 20 seek the power
OF the courts 10 protect them from mans
brutality.
There may. or may not, be consolation
in the fact that the courts have also too
frequently interviewed TO protect man
from a bellicose wife. There were, IN the
period Just mentioned 6l22 divorces
granted husbands for cruel and inhuman
treatment inflicted by their wives.
FREED FROM CRUEL WIVES.
A glance at some Of the cases IN which
husbands have been freed from their
wives because Of cruelty inflicted by the
fair defendants, may impress one that
what seems a joke 90 a third party was
a very serious matter 20 the object. For
that defendant aimed a red-hot poker
at the head Of plaintiff" II will be OBJ
served the poker was red-hot. which
made II 50 much the more dangerous
offensive weapon.
The following instance Of wlfely cruelty
cannot fail 10 move the pity OF the
reader for the husband, who was. almost
certainly, a dried up specimen OF his
kind. humbled In spirit by a long course
OF henpecking: Defendant Is power
full woman, weighing 80 pounds. She
struck plaintiff with a stove I'D and
broke one OF his ribs; on another occa-
sion she knocked plaintiff down with
chair"
The reader involuntarily attempts 10
picture the sudden disenchantment OF the
husband in the following case: THE
morning after their marriage the de-
PENDANT came into the room whore the
plaiutlR was lying In bed and beat him
with her shoe heel badly backing both
his eyes. SUIT for divorce began morning
after marriage
A UNIQUE BRIDAL TOUR.
The husband in the case below must
have been In a frame OF mind very SINH
lar 10 the one I'm the instance just cited:
ION their bridal trip from New York. de-
PENDANT fell I'm love with a German man
on the cars. She sat on the same seat
with the said German man. kissing him
and entwined in his arms. Plaintiff re-
monstrated but 10 no effect. This conduct
caused plaintiff great mental suffering"
Ii IS pretty safe 90 say the average
reader will think the husbands desire 70
be freed from such a companion as this
was only natural: My wife would not
walk with me on Sundays once. In a
tantrum, she hurled d teapot at me.
She hit me on tho side OF the jaw be-