Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1908-03-01


may be unfounded charges and cruel
imputations which are not more
easily borne than physical bruises,
and the necessary effect of which is
to cause great mental distress to the
person against whom they are made.
The courts should therefore grant
relief in such cases the same as if
the cruelty consisted of physical
chastisement, because the result
which the law is intended to prevent
may be accomplished without any
physical violence whatever The
health of sensitive wife may be as
effectually destroyed by systematic
abuse and humiliating insults and
annoyances as by blows and batter
les. 1t would be a reproach to the
law, as was said by Mr. Bishop in
his work on marriage and divorce, to
say that husband may not, by per-
sonal violence ruin the health of his
wife or kill her, and yet allow him
to produce the same result in some
other way.
Bishop on Marriage and Divorce
Sec. 1880
Upon this subject the Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas, uses the
following language: "a husband
may, by course of humiliating in
suits and annoyances, practiced in
the various forms which ingenious
malice could readily devise, eventu-
ally destroy the life or health of his
wife, although such conduct may be
unaccompanied by violence, positive
or threatened. Would the wife have
no remedy in such circumstances
under our divorce laws, because ac-
: tual or threatened personal violence
formed no element in such cruelty?
: The answer to this question seems
free from difficulty when the subject
is considered with reference to the
: principles on which the divorce fol
cruelty is predicated The courts in
tervene to dissolve the marriage
bond under this head, for the con
servation of the life or health of the
wife, endangered by the treatmen
. of the husband. The cruelty is judg
: ed from its effects not solely from
e the means by which those effects ar
Oh oil 40 4
9 if a husband avoids positive o
e threatened personal violence, tn
I wife has no legal protection agains
S any means short of these which h
u may resort to, and which may de
e stroy her life or health is to invit
u such a system of inf1iction by the in
$ demnity given to the wrong-doer
e The more rational application of tn
/ doctrine of cruelty is to consider
e reference to the effect it must neces
II Garily produce on the life or healt
4 of the wife; and if it has been sue
$ as to effect or injure either, to re
II gard it as true legal cruelty"
Ie But whatever may be the rule i
u other jurisdictions, the Suprem
,e Court of this State has decided tha
ii extreme cruelty may consist of mer
L tai suffering, rs well as bodily il
le jury
u Reed IS. Reed, A New. 395.
Kelly vs.. Kelly, Is New. 40.
% Gardner VS.. Gardner, % Ne
= 272.
r | am satisfied, however, that
Of order to constitute ground of d
,e vorce. cruelty, whether it consists I
physical suffering or mental anguish
nf must be unprovoked, and must be $
- serious and aggravated as to defei
H. the very purpose and object of ma
as rimony. A divorce cannot be gran
I'd ed for slight or trivial causes,
n even for acts of cruelty which do NJ
he amount to extreme cruelty, becau'
ad the Legislature has, in its wisdor
lie ordained that slight or ordinal
ID cruelty are not grounds of divorc
!, but that to warrant a court in di
d. solving the bonds of matrimony Il
h. cruelty must be extreme. In 9th
I'd words, the statute permits the diss
In luton of marriage only where Il
IS purpose of the relation has been
he feated by grave and serious misco
as duct. There may be misconduct (
li- the part of either spouse not amour
ly ing to extreme cruelty. but for th
he the law affords no relief. For SUI
he misconduct the suffering party mu
DIS bear In some degree the consequence
10 of an injudiclous marriage and mu
ID subdue by decent restriction or
or prudent Cancellation; and II this ca
er. not be done. then both must sun
L., utI.u.a TaUfaH hr fhaau Fnl,