Los Angeles herald., 1908-08-26
WOMAN AGAIN
DENIED DECREE
JUDGE B0RDWELL CRlTICISES
TACTICS
Mrs. Charles Hamrick, Who Endeav-
ored to Have Marriage Bonds Dis
solved, Doomed to Dis
appointment

Charlotte F. Hamrick, who sued her
husband, +. w. Hamrick, for divorce
on the ground of cruelty, desertion and
nom support and who was refused a
decree some time ago, was yesterday
denied a new trial in the superior court,
and the decision merits especial atten-
ton as voicing the views of Judge
Bordwell in case Of this kind and an
expression generally upon certain kinds
of divorce actions where the most
plausible story is presented to create
the impression that decree of separa-
ton should be granted.
Hamrick denied the assertions made
by his wife, but did not appear himself
at the trial of the case. On the date OF
separation Mrs. Hamrick, with her
three children, went to Pasadena to
visit a sister, and while there one OF
the children telephoned the father or
their whereabouts, receiving the re-
sponse there was no necessity for their
return, that there was nothing to eat in
the house, and if they did return they
would find no more home than jack
rabbit" Mrs. Hamrick did not return
home and testified that she would not
live with her husband under any cir
cumstances. The husband, says tina
court, cannot be compelled to support
his wife when she voluntarily lives
apart from him. Since the separation.
and also since the commencement OF
the action, Mrs, Hamrick has occasion
ally been out to dinner with her hus-
band and children, and in this connec-
tion Judge Bordwell says:
Plausible Story
Experience teaches that in actions
Of this class the plaintiff comes before
the court to present the most plausible
story to create the impression that q
decree of separation ought to be granted
liberty from any obligations and re-
straint by the marriage relation is the
objective. This case is no exception" !"
The charges of desertion and nom
support being disposed of, the court
takes up the consideration of the alle-
CATION Of extreme cruelty, saying 1t Is
worthy of note that Mrs. Hamrick was
careful to wait the expiration of the
year from the date OF separation before
beginning the action.
TT takes something more than mere
preponderance of evidence in divorce
case to justify the granting Of a de-
cree" says the court. 1.-THE charge
must be made out by satisfactory evil
dence-the public interest demands this.
If the mind is free from doubt 1t Is the
duty of the court to award a decree,
though the interest of society may
suffer thereby. We sometimes hear
discussion of the question whether the
interest of society is favored or harmed
by divorce. This is not debatable
subject in the courtroom. 1t is settled,
as a matter of law, by the highest
courts of the land that divorces are in
furious to society-a disruption of the
very foundation of society itself"
Discusses Cruelty
'eWhat is cruelty?" asks the court,
and, replying, defines it as a violation
OF the duty imposed by the marriage
relation. Cruelty, he says, is q relative
term. A given act or course of conduct
toward one person might cause extreme
mental suffering, while another would
not be thus affected. The station In
life, the sensibilities of the parties, their
viewpoint, must all be taken into ac-
count
II is the effect of the act, says the
opinion, 'that must be considered when
If Is charged as 81 ground for divorce
and not the act itself, however repre-
hensible 1t may be. If the complainant
proyokes the act complained of then 1t
cannot be considered as a proper basis
for divorce, for 1t Is brought on by HIM
self or herself. If the complainant per-
sists in a petty course of annoyance,
nagging. hectoring or henpecking, it Is
in human nature that there should be
some resistance or retort, coextensive
with the annoyance"
Expressing the belief that Hamrick's 8
conduct was in some degree caused by
his wife's treatment Of him, Judge
Bordwell disposes of the third and last
charge and denies the motion for new
trial.