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

to the date OF the decision. Follow
ing is the full text of the decision:
This action is brought to dissolve
the bonds of matrimony existing be-
tween the parties hereto. The plain
tiff alleges in her complaint and sup
Elemental complaint that the defend
ant has, by his conduct, inflicted
upon her grievous bodily injury and
grievous mental suffering. The de-
PENDANT, by his answer, specifically
denies all of these averments of
cruelty and in counter claim
charges the plaintiff with various
acts of conjugal unkindness, which
he characterizes as extreme cruelty.
With one exception, all of the speci-
fic acts of cruelty charged by the
plaintiff consist of mental suffering.
The only act of physical suffering
| charged by her is alleged to have
been committed since the filing OF
the complaint in this case, and this
| act is set forth in the supplemental
complaint. The evidence of the
plaintiff as to this particular act Of
cruelty is not very strong, and it i,
fully and completely denied by the
defendant. Under these circum
stances it must be held that the
| plaintiff has failed to sustain the
truth of this charge, which, under
the law, she is required to do by /;
preponderance of evidence The ques
tion then presents itself, do the othel
acts of cruelty relied upon by thu
plaintiff, entitle her to a decree o
divorce? The statutes of this Stat,
does not define what cruelty shat
consist of; nor whether cruelty con
sisting of mental suffering alon
shall be sufficient to entitle the in
nocent party to divorce. The APP
plication for a divorce in this cas-
being founded upon the statutor
ground of extreme cruelty it be
comes necessary therefore, to deter
mine what acts and character 0
treatment will, in the eyes of tn
law, amount to such cruelty.
AT common law the jurisdiction O
divorce cases was committed to tn
ecclesiastical courts. The rule fol
lowed in the ecclesiastical courts wa
that cruelty, to constitute a groun
of divorce, must consist of bodily in
jury, and that no relief could b
granted where the cruelty consiste
of mental suffering alone. This rul
, was fully discussed and considere
in the case of Evans VS.. Evans,
Hagg. Con. 35, and which is consit
cred the leading case upon the sui
ject. In deciding that case, Lor
Stowell said: What is cruelty? |
the present case It is hardly neceI
sary for me to define It. because til
facts here complained of are such d
fall within the most restricted defin
tion of cruelty; they affect not onl
the comfort. but they affect til
health. and even the life Of N
party. What merely wount
: the mental feelings is in few cases
: be admitted. when not accompaniy
Q with bodily injury. either actual I
menaced. Mere austerity OF tempe
= petulance OF manner. rudencss
G language. want of civil attentic
e and accommodation. even occasion
! Saillcs OF passion. II they do n,
threaten bodily harm. do not amoul
A to legal cruelty; they are high NOR
!. onenses In the marriage state. 70
4 doubtcdly. not innocent surely In al
\ state ot life. but Stin they are ~
= that cruelty against which the IA
can relieve"
do not bcli-ve. however. that Il
strict rule announced BY the veels
= lastieal courts which limited Il
rlght eg divorce 10 acts ~ physls
: SUFFERING wherv the grounds cot
planned 81 wcre extFeMe cruelty al
obtains but I am clearly ~ IN, Cpd
b lon that this rule has been xreat
yclaxca IN ntedstp times aud th