Harrison v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 31 August 1847
• Citation: 29 N.C. 484,7 Ired. 484
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: NANCY HARRISON v. NATHANIEL HARRISON.

7 Ired. 484

29 N.C. 484

NANCY HARRISON

v.NATHANIEL HARRISON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August Term, 1847.

On a petition by a wife for a divorce, the Court will not suffer an issue to be submitted to the jury in such general terms as these: “Did the defendant, before the petitioner left his house, offer such indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable and her life burthensome?” The petition must set forth the facts, the jury must pass upon those facts, and on their verdict the Court will determine, whether the facts fouud constitute or not a proper case for a divorce.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood County, at the Spring Term, 1846, his Honor Judge PEARSON presiding.

This was a petition by the wife for a divorce a mensa et thoro, and for alimony. It was filed on the 21st of October, 1842; and it states, that the parties married in 1839, and that the petitioner endeavored to perform all her duties as a wife: “but that, notwithstanding, her husband's conduct to her became daily more and more intolerable, by threats of violence to her person and charging incontinency, so as to render her life miserable; that, especially for the last three months of her residence with him, her treatment from him was cruel in the extreme; that she was once compelled to leave his house and seek protection at a neighbor's from the threatened violence to her person from her infuriated husband; and that often in the night, when he would awake and find her distressed by reflecting on her forlorn condition, he charged her with having illicit intercourse with one Henry Grady before her marriage and attributed her wakefulness to the lashings of a guilty conscience for her past whoredoms; and that, day after day, in the presence of his children by a former marriage, was she compelled to hear herself called by him the usual appellation of whore,” The petition further states “that the petitioner bore without a murmur this cruel treatment, in the hope that, by inquiring into her character, her husband would become convinced, that the charge was unfounded; but that, except in the presence of strangers, his conduct towards her became daily more barbarous, until she became satisfied, that her life would no longer be safe under his roof, and that she then left for her father's, ostensibly to have the aid of her female friends during her approaching confinement with her first child, but inwardly resolved never to return to her husband, until she had some assurance of a change in his conduct towards her.” The petitioner then avers “that she never gave her husband any reason for his discontents, and that the charge made by him against her reputation is wholly false, and that it was only trumped up by him to cover an ulterior purpose of driving her from his house, as he knew her character to be good, and had declared, that he did not marry her for any love he had for her, but through the persuasions of others.”

The answer states, that the defendant was at his marriage the Clerk of the County Court of Buncombe and resided in Asheville, and that his wife then lived with her father, John Murry, in the County of Henderson: that after the marriage Mrs. Harrison went home with the defendant and lived with him thirteen months; and that, for about ten months, they lived in peace and affection, and she was kind and dutiful as a wife and careful of his domestic concerns; but that, about that period, she became negligent of her household duties and indifferent to him; that, nevertheless, he over-looked it, as he did not suspect a want of affection for him, and attributed her conduct to melancholy and a predisposition to hysterics; that she became greatly dissatisfied with Asheville, and urged him to remove to the neighborhood of her relations in Henderson; but that he could not do so, as his duties in office and interest required him to reside in Asheville. The answer further states, that her neglect and indifference increased to such a degree, that he felt obliged to admonish her; and admits that, being a man of hasty temper, he may have done so more rudely and harshly than was becoming. The answer then states, that, a short time before the petitioner left the defendant's house, her father suggested to them, that, as the period of her confinement was approaching, it would be prudent she should go to his house, where she could have the assistance of her female friends; and that the defendant readily assented, and furnished the necessary means for her going, and did not then entertain the slightest suspicion of any dissatisfaction on her part. Soon afterwards he was informed, by a letter from Mr. Murry, of the birth of a daughter, and immediately the defendant went to Henderson to see his wife and child, and, after remaining with them a night and day, took an affectionate leave of them, being under the necessity of returning to his business. The answer further states, that, when the defendant sat off home, Mr. Murry, the father, accompanied him some miles, and then informed him, for the first time, that the petitioner ...