Norwich bulletin., 1921-10-18
JUDGE BROWN DENIES
 DIVORCE 10 MRS. PEEiFEER

Judge Allyn l.. Brown of the superior court has just handed down decision denying to Mrs Lucia Matthews Pfeif- eff of this city the divorce she sued for from Thomas J. Pfeiffer of Franklin, who saw service overseas in the World war. The suit was tried at the present term of court before Judge Brown The couple were married in this city Feb. 20, 1917, by Rev. J. H. Frederick and in the com plaint drawn in the case the wedding date was given as the time when intol erable cruelty began.
 Memorandum of Decision
 Judge Browns memorandum of de- cision reads as follows:
 The plaintiff seeks a divorce on the ground of the intolerable cruelty Of the defendant toward her since their mar riage Feb. 20, 1917 The plaintiff testi- fed that up to June, 1919, each was de- voted to the other and that there was no trouble between them.
 Our supreme court has said that intol- crable cruelty imports barbarous, sav- lgs inhuman acts. They must be in fact of that character as to be in fact intol- srable, not to be borne" (Shaw vs Shaw l7 Conn. 193,)
 Applying this test to this case, taking Che plaintiffs testimony to be true, the only specific acts of the defendant prior 10 Good Friday, 1921, which it could pos sibly be claimed amounted to intolerable cruelty were a threat by the defendant, Unaccompanied by any overt act or ap- parent means of executing it, to kill the rlaintiff. himself and their child if she left him. and a slap in the face which he gave her while they were living on Union street in the year 1920. These acts did
 not constitute intolerable cruelty, but had they, they were obviously fully condon- ed by the plaintiff.
 The only further specific acts of cruelty ] lpearing by the plaintiffs evidence are the alleged choking of the plaintiff by the defendant twice on the afternoon of | Good Friday within a period of a few moments, on the first occasion the plain | tiff voluntarily relaxing his hold. and or the second throwing the plaintiff and ! bruising her shoulder by the fall q | threat without any overt act the next
 night to choke her again if she did not stop chiding him; and holding her by her wrists at her parents home on East CT Sunday afternon. The defendant de
 nies that he choked the plaintiff at all or that he on either occasion used any | | her away from him.
 From their harmonious trip to Franklin i together after the Good Friday incident the plaintiffs statement to the defend | ants mother that she would come tc visit her again with the baby together that night their shopping expedition to- gether the next day when articles for the home were purchased, and the plaintiff testimony that not until Saturday night did she determine to leave the defendant it appears that the incident of Good Fri i day, whatever the true version of it was
 was also condoned by the plaintiff f The remark of the defendant on Satur- | day night, if made as testified to by the plaintiff, to the effect that he would
 choke her again if she didn't stop chiding l him, coupled with what occurred at he1 ! parents home the next day between the parties, taken in connection with all tha l had gone before as revealed by the evi | dence. cannot be held to amount to in | tolerable cruelty.
 On the evidence as presented I am sat | isfed that the plaintiff has failed to es i tablish by fair preponderance of tht | evidence, intolerabe cruelty within tn,
 meaning of the statute, on the part of tn, | defendant From the appearance of tht | parties and their testimony on the wit ness stand it woul dnot seem that any thing has transpired which should pre-
 vent their resuming their relations as hus band and wife and providing a good hom for their four year old daughter to whom both appear to be devoted The petition ] is dismissed