Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-01-30
|DR, R|NDLAUb Wins IN
APPEAL TO HIGH COURT
LOWER coUR T REVERSED THE DOC
GIVEN CUSTODY CHILDREN - JUDGMENT OF LOW
Err COURT REGARDING INVOLVED MoDi-
- sYLL AeUs FOLLOWS.

The supreme court yesterday hand
ed down it's decision in the divorce
| case of Maize B. Rindlaub VS.. John
! H, Rindlaub, one of the leading spec
| ialists of the state IN the diseases
| of the eye, ear, nose and throat, re-
| versing the decision of the district
court and granting to DR.. Rindlaub
an unconditional divorce on the
| ground of desertion, at the same
time modifying the judgment of the
lower court with regard to the
property involved in the controversy.
The Rindlaub divorce case was a
cause celebre in social circles at
Fargo, in which both the plaintiff
and defendant were prominent fig
ures.
The original action for divorce was
brought by Mrs. Rindlaub, who
charged cruelty ON the part Of the
defendant, and the use of morphine
by the defendant to such a degrke
that his actions were ground for di-
yorce.
A judgment of divorce was grant
ed by the district court, granting a
divorce to Mrs. Rindlaub, and award
ing her some $50, 900 OF alimony and
the practical custody of the children.
The handsome home of the Rind-
laub's, one of the finest in Fargo,
was awarded the defendant, DR..
Rindlaub, although it stood in the
name of his wife. The supreme
court reverses the lower court and
grants the divorce to DR.. Rindlaub
on the ground of desertion. The ev-
idence is declared not to warrant
the granting of a divorce to Mrs.
Rindlaub for cruelty. The charge OF
intenperance from the use of NOR
phine is held not established. The
home is awarded to the defendant
during his life time, and the custody
of the two children, Bruce and John,
is given to the defendant, subject to
the rights of the mother to visit
them and to have them at certain
times, set out in the judgment.
The syllabus of the decision and
the findings of the supreme court
are rs follows:
1. The district judge retains full
and complete jurisdiction. after APP
peal, to settle a statement of case
to be used on appeal or to do any
other act in furtherance of such ap-
peal. Held, accordingly, that plain
tiff's motion to strike defendants
statement from the record for reas-
ons assigned as basis for such mo-
ton, is without merit.
2. The marriage relation will be
dissolved only where it's purpose has
been defeated by grave and serious
misconduct. Such misconduct. to
warrant a judgment of divorce, must
be established by evidence of clear
and satisfactory character. Public
policy, good morals and the interests
of society require that the sacred
marriage relation should be sur
rounded with every safeguard and
it's severance adjudged only where
the complaining party has clearly
and satisfactorily brought herself or
himself within the terms of the stat
ute.
g. By Section 4O49 Revised Codes
1905. "Extreme Cruelty is designat-
ed as ground for granting divorce;
. and by Sec. 1851 it is defined as 1.-The
infliction by one party to the mar
riage of grieyous bodily injury or
grievous mental suffering upon the
other
! Following the construction of this
statute adopted in Mahnken VS..
Mahnken, 9 n. D. 1873,
Held, that grievous mental suffer-
ing may be sufficient to warrant a
divorce under the statute although
not productive of perceptible bodily
injury; but whether grievous mental
suffering has been inflicted by one
party upon the other is purely a
question of fact to be determined in
the light of the particular circum-
stances surrounding each individual
case.
! 4. Evidence examined and held not
of that clear and satisfactory char
acter to warrant the granting to
plaintiff of a divorce for extreme
cruelty.