Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-06-07
GOULD DIVORCE
CASE IN COURT
Judge Hears Argument on Motion to
Strike Out Parts of the Wifes
Complaint.

consists, in the first place, of physical in
jury, then of threats of bodily injury, made
under such circumstances as would war
rant a reasonable apprehension that bodily
injury would be committed, and lastly of
mental pain or anguish resulting in bodily
injury. One additional phase of cruelty
is recognized by the courts Of this state,
said Mr.. Nicoll, namely, the use of oppro-
brous epithets or charges of unchastity in
the presence of a child or of other persons.
Mr.. Nicoll then analysed the various OBJ
iectiOnable allegations. and argued that
nowhere in any of them was there suf-
nclent allegation to constitute charge
Of cruelty such as the courts would recog-
nize No bodily injury was charged and
no threat, nor was 1t shown that any men,
tai pain or anguish had been caused such
as would result in bodily injury
The allegation of immortality, which comes
under the heading in the complaint of per-
sonal conduct that has made 1t unsafe for
Mrs Gould to live longer with her husband
Mr.. Ncoll denounced as having no place
whatever in a complaint in suit for sep
aration. But, as a matter of fact, he said,
the whole complaint was so drawn in Its
loose charges that one could not tell exactly
just what was charged or what was I'M
piled.
Even a charge of lascivious relations with
women would be stricken out under pre-
vious decisions, said Mr. Nicoll as such
relations did not constitute legal cruelty
within the meaning of the term as ex-
pounded by the courts.
do you mean. Mr.. Nicoll," asked Justice
Mccall, that it is the rule of the courts
that there must be physical injury or in
jury to the health of the complaining
party?'
II maintain that that is the rule in the
United States and in England" replied Mr.
Nicoll. Your honor knows that up to the
last quarter of a century no one would
have thought of adducing mental pain as
a ground for a separation. Formerly the
only ground was physical injury, but now
under our more humane laws, mental pain
has been considered, but only under GER
tain circumstances, and the courts have
usually adhered to the rule that such men
tai anguish must result in physical injury
or injury to the health Of the plaintiff.
Defense Of the Complaint.
Mrs Gould's lawyer in reply entered into
a warm defense of the complaint which was
drawn by him. He said that it seemed
appropriate enough in view Of all the facts
that Mr.. Gould was quite unable to appre-
ciate that his treatment of Mrs Gould as
set forth in the complaint had constituted
cruelty Of the worst kind that husband
could inf1ict on wife. Such conduct was
even more cruel and less pardonable than
actual physical beating, when the cireum-
stances of the parties, their surroundings
and associations. were taken into considera-
ton.
While 1t was true, he said, that false ale
cations made in separation suits for mali
cious purposes only were sometimes stricken
out, yet where such allegations were not
false or malicious court would strike them
out, the consortng of husband with other
women openly and snamelessly was clearly
calculated to humiliate and degrade the
wife, and so constituted cruelty by beget
ting mental anguish of the kind bitterest
to a womans soul In any event, the re-
tention of the Objectionable allegations
could work no harm to Mr.. Gould, for they
simply apprised him of what 1t was In
tended to prove against him, and 1t would
be the part of the trial judge finally to de-
eide whether such evidence was admissible
or not. To strike them out, however, would
work great injury to Mrs. Gould as bar
ring her from proving many acts Of cruelty
which she wished to have the court con-
slider.