The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1906-01-06
Divorce FOR THE INNOCENT
so HOLDS SUPREME COURT
Leland Physician Not Entitled to Decree
on Grounds of Desertion, Because He
Was the Dessster Trial Court Erred
in not Finding for Defendant.

DR.. Joseph W. Stonebnrner, the
we'll known physician of Leland, Ida
no., Is not entitled to divorce from
his wife, Abbie, according to an opiu-
ion handed down by the supreme
court. A decree of divorce was grant
ed 20 DIR. Stoneburner by Judge steele
of the district court of Neg Perez
county, ON the grounds of desertion.
An appeal was taken by Mrs. Stone
hlrRer and the supreme court now
reverses the lower court. holding
that divorce is a remedy for the limo
cent and will not be- granted to one
who is shown to be guilty of a simi
lar offence against the martial con
tract as the one OF which he or she
complains. The supreme cour. says
that it has examined aud considered
the evidence introduced in the trial
court and found it insufficient to
warrant decree OF divorce ia favor
of the plaintiff
This Is DR.. Stoneburner' third at
tempt to secure a divorce. His first
suit was instituted in Indiana in
1896. hut was unsuccessful. lie
then migrated to Idaho and in 1900
brought another suit. His wife came
across the continent to answer aud a
decree was refused. Last year he
again brought suit and was success
full, but Mrs. Stoneburner appealed,
which is the case at bar.
The opinion is written by Justice
Ailshie, Chief Justice Stockslager
and Justice Sullivan concuriug.
The Court says:
cit satisfactorily appears to Us
that the fundamental cause of the
respondent deserving his wife on
June ., 1896, is more largely due to
his infatuation with another woman
than TO any cruel or inhuman treat
ment received by him at the hands of
his wife. 1t is probably true that
his attentions to another. woman call
ed down on his own head some we'll
meFited chastisement from his wife.
1t stands admitted that he first de-
serted his wife and that a court of
competent jurisdiction refused to
grant him a divorce. 1t must there
fore follow that he deserted his wife
without cause. He therefore left the
state aIl took up his domicile in a
foreign Jurisdiction where be again
sought to obtain legal release from
tie obligations Of his martial con
tIact. In order to defend herself
against his charges, the wife was
compelled to leave her home in Indi-
ana and come to this state, where she
successfully resisted his efforts to Oh
tain a divorce. The circumstances
surrounding the plaintiffs subse
quent conduct toward her led to the
irresistible conclusion that he was
seeking grounds for a diverse rather
than a sincere and bona fide recon
ciliation with his wife. Ii he had
engaged in these meetings and inter
views with his wife inspired and
prompted with a desire 10 win her
favor and discharge the obligations
of his marriage VOWS toward her
1t is difficult to understand why
he should have deemed it necessary
to have these meetings aud converse
tions where she could have no Wit
nesses to hear him, and should also
select a witness TO be in reach where
be could hear. But putting all these
aside, and eonceding all the plaintiff
says Is true, and that he did faith
fully and sincerely seek to be recon
ciled to his wife, and again discharge
his marriage duties and obligations.
there is another and even more ser
iOus reason why he should not have
been granted a decree. The plaintiff
was the first to commit statutory
breach OF the martial contract. lie
desrted his wife and admits that for
more than five years he did not re-
ture and when, after reapted failures
to obtain a divorce, he does seek
reconciliation, it il not at the home
he deserted, but in a foreign state to
which she has come in answer to pro
cess issued on his application.
1--WE conclude that the trial court
erred in not finding in favor Of the
defendant on her defense Of recrim.
ination. With such finding the
Judgment should have been denial
of the divorce. These parties must
be left where the court found them,
and il the plaintiff 90 conducts him
self as to hereafter bring himself
within the purview Of the law In such
cases. and .he defendant should re-
fuse to be reconciled to him. he may
then have standing in the court,
but not until he does. The order
denying a new trial is reversed and
the cause is remauded with direction