Norwich bulletin., 1922-07-22


 fame and abusive language in her prss- l eDce and In the presence of gues $ f This, as, to one orRtwo occasions, the de- 1 fendant admits. I am unable to find from the plaintif's testimony that he 1 ever cursed her or directly threatened | her. I am quite willing to believe that l the defendants attitude towards the l plaintiff was habitualiy that of master full superiority. and that at times. his remarks would be cutting and .cxasper- ating. am unable to find that his hab- ituaf behavior towards hera8from July l i, 1920, on to the bringing of this ac- ton differed materially from what 1t. H. l ways had been or that until shortly aOe- fore the bringing of this suit the plain tiff ever conceived 1t to be intolerable.
 Not Drug Addict
 I do not think the evidence requires me to ind that the plaintiff was at any time what could pe accurately described as an hAbitual drug addict. nor am l disposed to. accept the defendants expla- nation of her conduct as being that of one suffering from toxic mania Con fesSediy she had been fo rnany years an habitual smoker of cigarettes. and I am convinced from the evidence that she at times at least consumed cigarettes to an abnormal extent, and in an unusual man ner. that she was given to taking vari- ous drugs at times when not prescribed by a phyhician and that she suffered to some extent from promiscuous dosing
 This practice arose from taking remedies for headaches, from which the plaintiff ] in response to my questions when she was on the stand, stated that she had suffered severely until the past few years This practice; I am convinced, has had more or less harmful effect upon the plaintiff mentally reach this conclu- sion notwithstanding the testimony of Dr. l Maiihouse, for whose personal integrity and skill as a psychiatrist. have the highest esteem; that from exanIination
 he made of the plaintiff in October, 1921, and again the morning before he testified
 he did not discover any mental or physc- al symptoms in the plaintiff that could be attributed to the excessive use of drugs or narcotics.
 Episode of the Pistol
 The episode of the pistol and the talk 1 ing of one or more of the tablets from the naedicine belt is difficult to under
 stand unless it be that the plaintiff be-
 came mentally disordered from the opiate drug. This I am disposed. to find to be
 the fact upon plaintiffs own account of 1 the affair, corroborated by that of her mother, who testified that upon arriving at her house early in the morning, she i slept all that day and all that night and all of the next day until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. This abnormal sleep I am
 compelled to believe was caused by the i drug from the medicine belt which de- l fendant testified was a preparation of opi- 1 um. The plaintiff says she took but one of the tablets I am constrained to think she took more than one. Possibly she did not take but one before leaving the house, and may have taken other tablets
 with her and taken others after arriving | at her mothers home.
 I do not think she fired the pistol as
 she seems to think she did, although she undoubtedly took the pistol from the holster Of this weird incident in the plaintiffs, testimony; she gives. no satis-
 factory explanation only that she wanted to frighten the doctor am disposed to conclude that this incident occurred not in February. as the plaintiff testified. but in November, and may have had
 some connection with the proposal to con
 suit Doctor Diefendorf. s's
 Statements of Dlsordered- Mind
 If the testimony of Mrs, Linschoten as
 to the startling statements made to her
 by the plaintiff the evening before she
 left her, home in- May. 1921, is entirely
 correct, can only account for these
 statementsi on the theory that the plain
 tiff's mind was. temporarily disordered
 by the 7akiNs of some drug. or from some
 other. cause. . The plaintiff seems to have
 no- recollection of what she said to Mrs
 Lindschoten,. nor gives any reasonable
 expIanatio of that incident. I refer tc
 the time when. as Mrs. Lindschoten tes-
 tihed, the plaintiff came to her house
 and told her that the defendant would
 surely kill her that night and would cu E the telephone. wires, etc, and Mrs. Lind
 schoten told her she would light a. lanterT and go to the7 7neighbors if it became nee
 essary and telephone from there.
 It would be useless undertaking fol
 me to review all of the evidence of tn, protracted trial in this memorandum and state what. conclusions have reach
 ed as to numerous direct and collatera l issues that were presented. I may add 1T passing, that the incident to which Mrs
 Mcclure testified when. the child fel
 into the tub when four months old, wa : : not the incident to which the defendan
 testified when the child fell into the tul fully clothed when it was between four teen and sixteen months old. It may b , questioned whether the defendant wa ! entirely truthful when he testified tha 1, 1 Mrs. Palmers automobile was returne I to her in better condition than when h took 1t. The evidence did not disclos l : It did disclose that considerable extensiv : repairs were made after it's return. r DIsmIsses the Complaint
 C However difficult it may be to recon a cile or explain the conflicting evidenc ,. upon. many of the subordinate issues, 0 to reach a satisfactory conclusion as :. many of them, my duty Is concluded i l reaching conclusion upon the essentis ;. and controlling issues. As I have a . ready indicated the plaintiffs evidenc
 fails to establish the charge of intolel able cruelty. Indeed l. should hay '. great reluctance in granting, a divorc {. had the case been heard ex parte. Y It only remains for me to direct judt ment to be entered for the defendant, di "a missing the complaint.
 This result leaves unadjudfcated a 4 questions as to the custody of the chil ,- The marriage tie not being dissolved, u ,s parents have equal rights as to u d child's natural guardians. The defendal r. Is obligated to furnish support for bot n his wife and child reasonable, suitab l. and Appropriate. to the social status rt the family. He has the right to .demar ls that such support shall be furnished u his own established home provided tn h. Is suitable one, and the light to f ii and locate that home. It may be tn i'd the plaintiff will decide to return to h ly husbands home and resume her conjug Id duties to her husband and to her chi Fl can. of course, make no order in tf Us case compelling her to do so. If s n- chooses to live separate and apart fro st, her husband she will have no right 1t keep. the child from him, or deprive hi ii- of it's custody and society This will 1t SC unless 1t can be established that t [ h1@ @ka Al,