The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-23

and away When asked this language also cial
ing her with unfahfuness she replied: Yes sir, always
was Another witness who had lived the house. testified
that the ibelee when the influence of liquor abusive
and quarreome that by abusive he proane that he
could repeat the language but that mot any than
any oath you would hear barroom place of that kind
that this language addressed the wife, that there may
have been provocaon times sometimes that the
provocaon the way things conducted at home
management of the household affairs 4 = the
direction of the cooking and the time of the meals =
failure to direct the cook being away from home at
meal times that those occasions mostly dinner time
that being the time when the witness usually there that
there would be general quarrel that the wife would
of the abusive language that he would to
her. The court after referring the evidence said
ether things 'He said You have been rmfahfu That Is
the testimony of Mrs Bartlett and be presumed that she
stated her in the strongest light possible consistent with
truth Now when a wife, without the permission Of
husband stays away all night and does
return the morning the charge of
fdihflness does necessarily imply charge of adultery
The charge in such might we'll disregard of house
hold duties and wifey obligations other than chastity although
would perhaps be the construction which
might place upon it, The authorities which Mr. Ballou has
cited are announcing the proposition that while the
charge of adultery may be in any words denong adultery ye5
that must hich conrey necessarily the idea Of
1mchastiy"
Under our statutes decision divorce like the
verdict of jury in that cannot be set aside reversed If
there sufficient evidence support it. Lding LdnG 10
Haw 1873. Tn the present case considering that the belan
was only witness who testified the matter in
question: that language her husband used
but merely described it in general terms did lay
upon point, that others though living in the
house heard nothing of the kind far appears that
there quarre and abusive prone language other
such neglect of household duties and receiving call
whether women in instances under such cir
cumstances and such times raise doubts whether
unahfuness alleged have been charged of the
kind conended that the charge of nfaithfune made
NAV have been made as the said with reference
disregard household duties and wey obligations other than
considering these and other things, could not II
this jury verdict aside and therefore cannot set
aside the finding this far the evidence is concerned
The crucial question whether the trial court proceeded
principle of law We do the opinion
holding that language could not be regarded amounting
charge adultery unless necessarily implied that when
by itself alone The recognized that such charge
might be any words denotng adultery The statement of
that the authorities cited clear that in of this
kind the charge of adultery must be in words which
necessarily the idea of mchasiy taken by itself to
far If that instruction given to jury 1t might be
least serious question whether would not be sufficient to
call trial But the alone acted in this and
the whole opinion should be considered together. If instead
statement the had said that words might be
taken to amount to charge of adultery if they could bear that
meaning under the circumstances there would be
for upposing different conclusion would have been
reached The trial Judge besides making the above
referred in this Connection also quoted dictionary definitions
Of the word 'nfaithune and said that there many
things the doing of which, the omission do which, would
the wife mfathful lie ALSO in the passage above
quoted referred the weakness of the testimony the absence
of testimony which available and would naturally be
no
shown just what the word intended He also after
referring, above stated the authorities general
proceeded refer the specifically and point wherein
they differed from this showing that in those the charges
made clearly whether directly by implication and in such
way in connection with circumstances made