Waterbury Democrat., 1901-04-12
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
Thirty-Nine Couples Separated
 in Waterbury in a Year.

Thirty-Nine Couples Separated
 in Waterbury in a Year.
 The Number of Marriages Was 409--
 The Causes of Divorce-June Was
 the Banner Matrimonial Month of
 the Whole Year.
 The average person who pretends to keep informed on vital statistics in this community, on being asked how many marriages and divorces took. place here during the past year, would say that marriages were few and di- vorces, judging from the work of the divorce mill during the term of the superior court just closed, were quite numerous. This question, in fact, was asked Il number of people, and they answered as above stated.
 The facts point to q contrary situa- ton, very much so indeed. Cupid ap- parently worked a good deal over time last year. He is not q clamorer for an eight-hour working day, but egi- dently delights in doing good work. Of course lie made many mistakes i'll the past, which, however, he did not take as q reason why he should by any Fl before All tlie blame should not be thrown on his winged shoulders for, the mistakes of the. matrimonial mar ket, and for that matter he evidently does not care q jot. While some bear the ills of matrimonial misfortunes all through life others can seek relief through the medium of the divorce courts.
 During the past year there were granted in the local superior court thirty-nine divorces. These are offset by 409 marriages in this city. This number does not include the marriages of local people that took place outside of the city, and these9are supposed to amount to about fifty, which would make in all 459.
 The popular months for marriages are June. October and November, as shown by the following fgures: In January of last year the number of marriages that took place were 42, Feb- ruary 8, March Il, April 37, May 3344, June 59, July 31, August 25, Septem- Der 26, October 47, November 43 and December 19.
 While in this state there is no legal barrier to prevent one from marrying, obtained are few. They are intolera- ble cruelty, habitual intemperance, abandonment, infidelity, fraudulent contract, Imprisonment for life, or any infamous crime involving the violation of conjuga1 duty, or any crime punish able by Imprisonment in the state prison. Ordinary cruelty is not sui, ficient If husband or wife beats the other once or twice throughout year that is not grounds sufficient for q divorce. There must be extraordi- nary violence. and it must be fre- quent, and the petitioners own state. ment is not enough to support such an allegation. Witnesses outside ones family. carry more weight in their testi-
 mony than do witnesses of ones kin. Infrequent abuse of intoxicants is not alone sufficient either. The ex- cess must have become almost con- stant and there must be no reason given the user by the petitioner for such n dissipated appetite. Usually. according to the majority of evidence. the husband of petitioner for divorce on the grounds of intemper-
 ance, becomes addicted to the drink habit almost immediately succeeding the termination of the honeymoon. He never drank before. and the petitioner has no reason to assign for his singu- lar downfall.
 Abandonment is not always easy to
 prove. Evidence of the recreant's in tention to never return must be given to satisfy the court before a divorce can be granted. The mere going away of the person is hardly sufficient un- less he left behind some reason. Men seldom do this; they simply go away
 without the slightest warning and the wives never hear of them again. Such
 was the case in a family that lived in the western part of the city not long ago. The parties were quite young. The husband apparently was most de- voted to his wife, but one day he said he would go hunting. He went, taking his favorite dog with him, and that was the last seen of him.
 l. Sometimes the wife departs to parts
 unknown and usually she leaves note for her husband bidding him an eter- nal goodbye. Occasionally she has the effrontery to inform him that she
 prefers the society of some other man, or that he cannot maintain her as she desires. During the past year a case
 came up In which the wife told her husband she loved him, but she loved the other man more
 In1delity is not easy to prove. In-i ference from the defendants conduct is not always adequate, nor is circum- stantial evidence to be relied upon to procure the divorce. The actual fact that the defendant by his or her ac- tions showed a preference for the so- icety of some other man or woman Is not sufficient in itself to obtain free. dom.
 Of the thirtyrnine divorces granted in the local divorce courts during the year thirty were granted to women
 Various causes were given in the pc titions. Eleven were based on habitu- al intemperance, thirteen on desertfon, nine on intolerab1e cruelty, four on in- fidelity and the. balance on the com- bined grounds of intolerab1e cruelty and habitual intemperance. Three pc titlons were dismissed for lack of evi- dence, or were withdrawn for the same cause. While the number that was not called amounted to forty three. Some of these will probably re- main on the docket for some time and others will never be called as the par ties have seemingly kissed and made up.
 A great factor in deciding q petition for divorce is as to where the parties were married. whether by clergyman or q justice of the peace During the last term of the superior court Judge Thayer asked every petitioner for di- vorce where he or she were married.
 Ina, 4i,o