Judges: Clay
Filed Date: 12/9/1914
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/9/2024
Opinion op the Court by
— Affirming.
Plaintiff is 42 years of age and defendant is 47 years of age. They were married in February, 1892. They have six children, the oldest being 20 years of age, and the youngest nine years of age. At the time of their marriage defendant owned a half interest in 76 acres of land, his brother owning the other interest. Both plaintiff and defendant were frugal and industrious. They were each animated by a praiseworthy ambition to get ahead in the world, and neither ever shirked any work that was necessary to attain this end. It appears that they lived happily together until about the year 1912. During all this time defendant permitted plaintiff to sign his name to checks. In spending her own and her husband’s money plaintiff was always quite economical.
In the fall of 1911, Henry and Willie Kearns, distant relatives of defendant, came from Illinois to Kentucky on a visit. These young men were blind. Henry was about 27 years of age, and Willie 25 years of age. They possessed some musical talent, and proceeded to give a large number of entertainments at the school houses in the vicinity of defendant’s residence. Plaintiff attended a number of these entertainments in her immediate neighborhood and at other places. Sometimes plaintiff took the boys visiting. The boys also spent a good portion of their time at the home of plaintiff and defendant. When the boys returned to Illinois, plaintiff and Willie Kearns agreed to correspond with each other. In order to be able to do this, plaintiff learned the Braille system of writing. This correspondence continued for some time. About the middle of August, 1912, plaintiff and one of her children, over the objection of defendant, visited the father and mother of the blind boys, who lived in Clay City, Illinois.' After remaining there three or four weeks, she returned to her home, and brought the blind boys with her. Soon after plaintiff’s return, defendant concluded that plaintiff thought more of Willie Kearns than she did of the members of her
According to the evidence of the defendant, he did not say to-plaintiff that she did not stay in the room very long with Willie. His remark was, “He did not sleep long when she did not mind the flies off him. ’ ’ A number of people had spoken to him about his wife’s relations with Willie Kearns. He remonstrated with her about it. His wife had frequently threatened to leave. When he took the blind boys to Sunrise his wife said, “If you don’t like the way I am doing, I can leave.” As- she had been making threats before, he said, “You can go.” He took the boys to Sunrise on Tuesday morning, and when he returned plaintiff had gone to Olay City, Illinois. Defendant wrote to her to return and sent his brother-in-law after her. In about two weeks she returned to his home, and remained there until the following April 21st, when she again left his home and went to Cynthiana. A number of defendant’s neighbors who had an opportunity to observe his relations with his wife, testified to the fact that he always treated her in a kind and considerate manner. -His evidence further shows that his wife’s conduct towards Willie Kearns was the subject of discussion by members of her family and by the neighbors.
. We deem it unnecessary to set out the evidence in detail. We have carefully considered the record. It is certain that no trouble occurred between the parties until the coming of the two blind boys, while the record clearly shows, and it is admitted by everyone, that Mrs. Kearns was guilty of no wrong-doing in her relations with Willie Kearns, yet it is also apparent that her attentions to and interest in him were so pronounced as to make her conduct the subject of neighborhood gossip. In view of this fact, it cannot be contended that defendant did not have the right to remonstrate with her, and to call her attention to the fact that her actions were being canvassed by her family and friends. It is doubtless true that the defendant became jealous when he saw that his wife appeared to take more interest in Willie Kearns than she did in the members of her own family. While it may be true that her interest was doubtless due to her sympathy with thq boy, it is also true that her interest was so pronounced as to cause comment and make her husband feel that he and his family were being neglected. Great stress is placed on the alleged statement of defendant to the effect that plaintiff did not stay in the room long with Willie. It is insisted that the defendant, by this language, charged plaintiff with want of chastity. In our opinion, however, the language does not bear such a construction, especially, when considered in the light of defendant’s considerate treatment of his wife. All the occurrences on which plaintiff relied took place within three or four days. It may be that defendant should not have told plaintiff that she could go, but it is shown that he repented of this act by writing for her to come home and sending his brother-in-law for her. After her return to his home, she and her daughter say that defendant cast slurs and insinuations at her, but they are unable to give any specific instances. It is not every exhibition of temper or improper remark that will justify the granting of a divorce. The law, out of consideration for human weakness, recognizes the fact that all of us are liable at times to lose self-control, and make remarks which we would not, make in our calmer moments. For this reason the statute provides that where cruel and inhuman treatment is relied on, it must
Judgment affirmed.