The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1900-07-12
IN A DIVORCE CASE.
DECISION as to the Rights of Parents to III.
terfere with IA Married Couple.

,, DECISION To the Rights of Parents to III.
terfere with Married Couple.
An important decision has been rem
dered by the Law Court III the case Of
Grant Oakman vs.. James +. Btlden
and his wife. Oakman is the husband
of the defendants daughter. He sued
them. alleging that they hud persuaded
his Wife to leave him. Then answer to
the suit was that lie had abused his
wife and She had come home to her
parents by their consent and that they
should keep her as long as she wished to
remains with them. because they had
done no more than. as the parents of
the yonug woman, they had a right to
do
The case was tried at the last March
term of the supreme Court in kenne-
bee county. Joseph Williamson and A.
NJ. Goddard of Augusta appeared for
plaintiff, and Brown 4 Brown of Water
vile appeared for the defendants.
Judge Emery instructed the jury that
IF separation of the PLAINTIFFS wife
from him was the result of the active
interference of the defendants, either
by threats, persuasion OF arguments,
then the defendants were liable The
verdict was for the plaintiff and the de
PENDANTS counsel took exception to the
judges statement of the law The fol
lowing is the decision from the law
court:
kennebec. IS.
Oakman VS.. Belden ct al.
Rescript by Savage, }.
\ parent may not with hostile, wicked OF
malicious intent break up the relations be-
tween his daughter and her husband. lie
may not do this simply because he is dis
pleased with the marriage, OF because it
| was against his will, or because he wishes
the marriage relations to continue no longer.
But a parent may advise his daughter in
good faith and for her good, to leave her
| husband, if he, on reasonable grounds, be-
Heves that the further continuance OF the
marriage relations tends to iniure her health,
/ or to destroy her peace Of mind, 50 that she
would be justified in leaving him, A parent
may, i'll such case, persuade his daughter.
He may use proper and reasonable argu-
ments. Whether the motive was proper OF
improper is always to be considered,
whether the persuasion or the argument is
proper and reasonable. under the conditions
presented to the parents mind, is also al
ways to be considered 1t may turn out
that the parent acted upon mistaken premises
or upon false information, or his advice and
his interference may have been unfortunate,
still, if he acts in good faith, for the daugh-
ter's good, upon reasonable grounds of be-
lief, he is not liable to the husband.
In this action, a husband seeks to recover
from his wife'S parents damages for the
alienation of her affections. 1t is held by
the court that an instruction to the jury, in
substance, that, ''if the separation OF the
plaintiffs wife from him was the result of
the active interference of the defendants.
either by threats, persuasion or arguments,
then the defendants were liable placed
upon the defendants a much more grievous
burden of justification than parents ought
to be compelled to bear and was erroneous.
The court discovers no error in the other
rulings complained OF.
Exceptions sustained.
Reed June sc, 1900, New trial granted.