Norwich bulletin., 1922-07-22
JUDGE WEBB DENIES DIVORCE THAT
 WAS SOUGHT BY MRS. HARRY M. LEE

which she alleged intolefable cruelty and asked custody -:of their seven year-oid daughter, Adalene Lee, who was refer red to the trial as ''Eaby Lee, has de- pfairit. -'
 In his decision which was handed down Friday. Judge Webb says that he cannot credit much of the testimony of Mrs. Lee, and while he cannot scharac- terize her as a. drug addict, he. advances the suggestion that some of her state ments may be ascribed to the disordered condition of her mind, which vas the ef feet of drugs. Judge Webb states that Mrs. Lee has failed to establish her claim of intolerable cruelty, and he ex- onerates Mrs. Marie Perkins of any inn putations of irzroper conduct. In one respect Judge Webb states that he is also unable to give full credit to Dr. Lees testimony regarding the use he made of Mrs. Palmers automobile.
 The decision makes no ruling upon the custody. of Baby Lee, but leaves the respective rights of the parents as the law determines them. M Several months ago. following a hear ing before Judge Allyn L. Brown upon the custody of the child. he gave the GUS ] tody of Baby Lee to Mrs. Lee, with a provision that pr. Lee should have the !, child at stated times.
 ] It is considered probable that appii- | cation will now be made to the courts for an order determining the custody of the child. Judge webb's Decision.
 Judge Webb's memorandum of decis- ion filed with Judge George E. Parsons clerk of the superior. court, was as fol lows
 The plaintiff in this action seeks a 1 judgment of divorce nn the grounds of intolerable cruelty. The amended con,- p,aint specifically charges that between i July i. 1920 and it's. date that the de- | ferdant's behavior towards the plain ti6 was that of studied neglect and un- kindness, repeatedly making false. ma 1 licious and insulting aocusations concern 1 ing the plaintiffs morality and sanity, | subiecting her to humiliation and degre- dation.. permanently destroying her peace vile offensive and abusive language. thereby causin" mental suff>r.n;r and
 irn7a irnent Of the plaintiffs heath.
 The parties we've married January 91 l 1918 and while tke evidence at the tr al has covered a most exhaustive review f 1 their whole marital life, the comptaint 1 limits the inquiry as to the defendant $
 conduct. toward the plaintiff. so far aa the charge of intolerab,e cruelty is con
 
 months from July 1. 1920 until the plain tiff finally left her home in MFsy 1Nat. It was admitted by the plaintiff and her counsel at the trial. that prIor e July 1. 1920. the defendants conduct t,- ward his wife. however it might ha v
 been chara Nerized ard described di ]
 net amount to intoIerable cruelty. and
 the plaintiff testified that she had TIC
 reason to complain of the defendant ; ] L Ia4n
 The plaintiff makes no complaint 'nf
 nor does the evidence disclose any act:
 of physical violence or abuse, nor any
 specific threats of bodily injury.
 The modern decisions seem clearly tc
 recognize that intolerable cruelty may exist as a ground of divorce even
 though the guilty party did not resort to physical violence or abuse. The plan
 tiff has testified that the defendants con
 duet twards her at sundry times dur'
 ing the period in question was such tlat she was substantially in fears of hel
 life That while the defendant never di rect;y threatened to take her life he toiC |, her on repeated occasions that he wishe,
 she were dead and had died five year, . before. and that 1t was an, easy matte for a phys.cian to. get rid of h:s wife That she was in terror for her safeI and that in consequence her. health be
 came seriously impaired
 Exonerated Mrs. Perkins.
 While there Is no evidence th1; tn - ! defendant ever charged the p,aintif T specifically with, unchaste or inmor& g conduct she testified that on one c
 more occasions he said that her daugh . ter by her former, marriage was . whore and said that she, the plaintiff i had been bad from her youth and tha 2 her family was rotten. Considerable az
 idence was offered concerning the defend 4 l ants attentions to MrS Perkins. fl t secretary. such as permitting her to rid h with him on the front seat of his au f tomobile while. the plaintiff was expecte ' l to sit alone on the back seat and su
 l trusting her with certain duties SIC
 as permitting her to arrange for. the a,
 tendance of their daughter at the schoc
 in Baltic. and sundry other matters a of which was for the purpose of humili4 4l ing her.
 U While the claim was not directly mad, - nor was any evidence offered. tending { g establish any improper relations betwee $ the defendant and Mrs, Perkins, the \ l. dence disclosed such a connection wIt '- and relation to the unhappy domest a history of these parties since sile sntere n the defendants employ on Sept. T. 1s3 ,- that I deem 1t proper to ssy that + can find nothing in the evidence tn; n would justify a suspicion. mu Cl Ie, y finding, that the relations of Mrs. Pc
 kins to the defendant were in the sligh d est degree improper or questionable, .s that she ever by her conduct gave Il = plaintiff any reason to feel huni,ia { l. or disturbed. Indeed 1t would appe; A from the plaintiffs own testimony al
 all the evidence ih the easel that u
 plaintiff down at least to the time V- bringing this suit, entertained the kin Ai Hest feeling towards Mrs. Perkins, ar l. treated her on all occasions with r 1t spect.
 y The burden is upon the plaintiff t, e r. tablish the essential allegations of h g. complaint by a fair preponderapce of fl of evidence. I have given very special co l. sideration fo the evidence in this cas
 followed 1t as 1t was produced st ' T. trial with the most faithful attention s. was able to comm and and have read al to studied the stenographer's transcri lp thereof with care as well as the al ir briefs of counsel. I am unable to fl to that the plaintiff has sustained the bu fir den of proof which the la3 places up IT. her I have carefully W w.:ghed the. e ee dence and must refuse to find as a f. 70 that the defendant ever charged { t-l plaintiff with unchaste CT immoral co ut duct: or tod the plaintiff that he Ii, al ed she was dead that rhysiclan cot
 easily get rid of his wife, thni he wot
 as soon kill or get rid of her, or a
 person objectionable ty him az he vol
 a cat; that he ever tod he :. was h on having two wives and tllA' Mfr. Perki " would not wait much Iouger 1 am [ to able to find. as a fact, any thre on, statement or conduct 0. tie ilefsndz Lte that should reasonably i1rdIce tSe pla ed tiff to believe that her husbard mi