Evening star., 1909-03-08
MADE WIFE SIGN APOLOGIES
HUSBANDS ACTS CONSTITUTE
DESERTIoN, COURT HOLDS.
Mrs. Harrison Is Granted a Limited
Divorce With Alimony Against
Local Patent Attorney.

Finding that the conduct OF Arthur w
Harrison, local patent attorney. who e.
dured his second wife. Mrs. Mary T. Har-
r.son. to sign written apologies to him
when she had used offensive language
toward him, and who drove her from his
home. amounted in law to a desertion by
the husband. Justice Barnard has rem
dered an opinion holding that Mrs Harri-
son is entitled to a limited divorce and to
almony. An order will be signed later
fixing the alimony at $40 per month
This is Mr.. Harrison's second experience
in the local divorce court his first wife
having been awarded a decree for deser-
tion with alimony at $75 month Mr..
Harrison will now have to pay s11o alimo-
ny each month.
The litigation between the second MIS-
Harrison and her husband began July s
1907. when Mr.. Harrisot. Iiied suit for a
limited divorce on the ground of cruelty
alleging that his wife had slapped his
face. pulled his hair and otherwise mis-
treated him. To this Mrs. Harrison re- re,
piled by denying the allegations of the
husband. and filed a crossbill asking a
legal separation on counter charges Of
desertiOn and cruelty. The wife was al
lowed temporary alimony at $50 pei
month. The case went to trial on the
to. He withdrew his original charge.
Mrs. Harrison charged that her husband
is eccentric and of irritable disposition
and cruelty Indifferent to her happiness.
She declared he would require her to apol-
OgiZe in writing and on her knees FOL
words used in the course of petty bicker-
ings between husband and wife. When
an apology was made. she said, he Wouid
accept it. but with the requirement tina,
she should not speak to him until a fixed
f,,f ,f,IY. in1n DIR in
would also refrain from speaking to her
On one occasion. she alleged. Mr.. Har-
rison became extremely indignant be-
cause she failed to open the house door
prior. to his turning the key. and de-
manded both a written and verbal apol-
osy for this inattention.
She declares he finally brought his
oldest daughter by his first marriage to
live with them. and when she com
planned he told her. she alleges. that ii
daughter remaining at his home she
would be obliged TO go. She declares
Ger leaving was not voluntary.
Justice Barnard in his opinion says
My impressions of the testimony are
such as to convince me that 1t woulo
be impracticable for these parties to live
together in any. sort of harmony. The
difference in their ages, in their tempera
ment. the manner in which they have
gotten along together during the time they
were nV1ng as husband and wife, the
exactions and intolerance of the husband
about trivial things, the apparently ar
bitrary manner in which he dealt with
his wife, his unfortunate lack of tact
the evident desire on his part to have
the relation terminated by a separation
and in the most economical manner that
he could bring it about. and his evident
want of affection or regard for his wife
all force me to the conclusion that the
relief prayed by the wife ought to be
granted. I am inclined to the opinion
that the acts create in law case OF
desertion on his part, If not OF cruelty
such as would justify decree of separa.
ton from bed and board
Attorney John f. Laskey represented
the wife.