Indiana daily times., 1921-09-06

the .eXTraVa gdnce or the wife. In con-
tested divorce cases tie evidence of the
wife generally shows that the husband
has given her nothing to be extravaganr
with.
The pitiful feature Of a divorce trial
when the husband and wife appear, is
that in ninety-ni cases out of a hun
dred neither party will admit tnat they
are in tn wrong or equally TO blame for
the wrecked home.
u is in Superior Court. Room 2. where
Judge Linn Hay presides, that the hus-
band ard wife are made to realize that
each party is 10 blame for the domestic
unhappiness in the home. Judge Hay
does not hesitate in telling parents when
the facts warrant it, that their behavior
has been deDlOrable.
JUDGE DEMANDS
CLEAN HANDS.
Judge Hay has dismissed divorce reti-
tions when the evidence has showed the
plaintiff has come into court with ''un-
clean hanLs..'
By plain talk, Judge Hay has done
much to compel fathers and mothers to
realize the real significance Of what di-
vorce means. This jurist has been sue
cessful along this line and so careful is
he in granting a divorce that some law
yers will not file divorce cases before
him. Judge Hay demands that sufficient
cause as the statutes pIOFlue must De
shown in competent and corroborated
evidence before he will sign his name to
decree.
The present Marion County bench is
making 2 sincere effort to handle the df-
vorce question. Judge 7. J. Moll of Su-
peIior Court, room ;, has been successful
in many instances in obtaining reconcilia-
tions. Only recently following a conver-
sation with Judge Moll, a husband with
h.
living together happily.
PETTY eUARRELs
LEAD TO COURTS.
A careful examination of the divorce
evidence shows this startling fact-that
+ the start of the trouble in majority o.
the homes Is Quarreling based upon petty
differences.
Here are a few Of the causes for bitter
quarrels which are shown in the divorce
evidence:
That the husband showed no signs
of affection for his mother-in- law.
That both the husband and wife
would not speak to each other for
days at a time.
That the husband refused to tell
his wife where he had been late at
night. This generally results in the
wife accusing her husband of inidel-
ity and in many cases at the time Of
the wife's suspicious there were no
grounds upon which to base them.
That the wife refused to cook
dishes that he enjoyed.
That the wife would "gad about"
leaving the dishes for the husband
to do.
That the wife was a poor and
dirty" housekeeper.
That the husband refused to ac-
company his wife to the theater and
dances.
That the husband objected to the
female companions of his wife and
objected to his wife attending public
dances.
That both the wife and the hus-
band engaged in the pastime of
throwing dishes and kitchen utensils
at each other.
These are bus a few of the petty"
differences between married people which
the courts listen to daily. In nearly
every case, the qUarrels could have been
averted if a little common sense had
been used by the parties. The divorce
evidence indicates that words are cheap"
and when heaped upon each other, the
result is a first-class quarrel As the quar-
reling Increases, vile and indecent Ian
gpage Is used and in many cases the
Wue cAdFSes IhaI ner huSDand either
threatened to strike her or actually did.
MUST LEARN LESSON,
GIVING AND TAKING.
The impression one receives from
study Of divorce cases in the local county
courts is that men and women have not
learnel the lesson of giving and taking
in tho matrimonial game. They fail to
realize that selfshness is the basis of
the majority Of the quarrels. The evil
dence shows that the wife often demands
that her husband accompany her to |
shew OF dance when he comes home