The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1905-01-10
MRS. WHlELAN DENIED "A
DIVORCE BY THE COURT
He Held That There Was Not Evidence of Gross
Neglect of Duty or Extreme
Cruelty.

a knife, yet it was not such an act OF
cruelty as was necessary for the grant
ing of a divorce but the more modern
idea is that any act of cruelty Is
ground for a divorce and that the act
OF cruelty does not necessarily mean
laying on Of hands, but may be the
using of cruel and harsh words From
n careful consideration of the case l
am convinced that the treatment of
Mrs. Wheian by the defendant was not
all that should have been desired or
expected by her But however harsh
ly the defendant may have spoken to
her at different times l cannot find
that the words were used in mali
cious manner. The plaintiff alleges
three different acts of cruelty in her
petition. The one occurred about the
time of the plaintiffs mothers death
in which the plaintiff claimed that
| the defendant cholted her. This was
denied by the defendant and there
was no corroborating testimony as to
/ this and courts will not grant a d.
vorce on the ground of extreme cruelty
| without Corroboration. The other act
Of cruelty was, that sometime in May
! 1903, the defendant choked her. In
this the plaintiff was corroborated by
| the testimony of her youngest son.
According TO testimony the boy is but
years old now and he could not
| hpve been more than five and one-half
years OF age then and his recollection
| of the occurrence would not be as
| 5ivid at that age as if he were older.
! The other act of cruelty charged in
/ the petition occurred in the presence
of jeanette Hay, the domestic at the
/ Whelan home. Miss Hay corroborated
! the plaintiff in the act of cruelty
charged, but testimony was introduced
'ere by the defendant to show that
witness, jeanette Hay, was addicted
/ to the use of morphine and courts re-
gard such persons as unreliable.
Quite number of witnesses for the
defense testified that they would not
believe the witness on oath.
If there were acts of cruelty by the
husband they were all condoned by the
plaintiff by her own actions except
the last one. The one thing that / am
most deeply touched by in this case is
the letter written by the plaintiff to
the defendant at the time of her
mothers death and just four days be-
fore the separation. (Here Judge Hole
read the letter which was full of en-
dearing phrases and which spoke of
her husband in the most kindly
terms.) When the plaintiff wrote this
letter she spoke as she felt. The let
ter shows that the plaintiff had de-
voted love for her husband.
So then from a careful consideration
of the case l cannot find from the
testimony that defendant was guilty of
such acts of cruelty that would war
rant me in granting a divorce. The
marital relation is not such an obliga-
tion as can be set aside by the wife
on a hysterical whim or notion she
may have about being abused.
In fixing the alimony have arrang-
ed it with a view and the hope that
there may still be a reconciliation be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant.
The plaintiff shall have the custody of
the children, she perhaps being better
able to care for them, but these chill
dren are at such an age when their
welfare demands the care and atten-
tion of the father as we'll as the
mother"