Morehouse v. Morehouse

• Decision Date: 02 March 1898
• Citation: 70 Conn. 420,39 A. 516
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MOREHOUSE v. MOREHOUSE.

39 A. 516

70 Conn. 420

MOREHOUSE

v. MOREHOUSE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 2, 1898.

Appeal from superior court, Litchfield county; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Suit by Minnie C. Morehouse against Joseph J. Morehouse for a divorce. Tried to the court. Pacts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by defendant for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. The defendant also filed a motion to correct the finding. No error.

The complaint alleged three grounds of divorce: Adultery, habitual intemperance, and intolerable cruelty. The answer denied the main allegations of the complaint, and alleged that the plaintiff had committed adultery. In the judgment the court finds: "(1) That the plaintiff has resided in the state of Connecticut continuously for three years before the date of this complaint; (2) the plaintiff, by the name of Minnie C. Burchard, was lawfully married to the defendant on the 28th day of June, 1883; (3) that the defendant on divers days between April 1, 1892. and the date of this complaint has been guilty of intolerable cruelty to the plaintiff,"—and thereupon adjudges a divorce. The special facts on which the judgment is founded are found as follows: "(1) The plaintiff and defendant intermarried at Danbury, in this state, on June 28, 1883. (2) They have no children. (3) Shortly after their marriage they went to Chatham, New York, to live, and remained there until June, 1890, when they came to Connecticut, where they intended to, and did, make their home and residence, and where they have ever since resided. From said Chatham they came to Salisbury, in this state, and boarded at the Maple Shade Hotel until August 10, 1891, when they moved into their own home, which had been in the meantime built, in the village of Chapinville, in said Salisbury; and both resided there until February 26, 1896, with the intention of making it their home indefinitely, when the plaintiff left the defendant, for the reasons hereinafter stated, and returned to said Danbury, her native place, where she has ever since remained. The defendant has continued his home and residence at said Chapinville, and still resides there. In 1890 the defendant became connected with the Landon Iron Company, having a furnace in Chapinville. Since 1889 the defendant has been connected with a number of other corporations, doing business in different localities, and has had an office in New York City. The plaintiff and defendant while living together and having their home in Chapinville, passed a portion of each year, from December 1st to May 1st following, in New York, where they occupied a leased flat. (4) I find that the plaintiff and defendant have each continuously resided in this state as aforesaid since June, 1890. (5) While I do not find that the defendant was habitually intemperate, within the meaning of our statute, I do find that he was habitually addicted to the use of Intoxicating liquor in large quantities, and at times drank to excess, usually at home, and out of business hours, and under such circumstances as to cause the plaintiff mortification and suffering. The plaintiff used such liquors moderately, in a social way, and at table with him. (6) This habit of drinking grew upon him, and was more marked during the last few years of their married life, and was to a considerable extent the cause of his conduct and treatment of her hereinafter found. (7) Her remonstrances in respect to his habits were of no avail. He persisted in them, well knowing the consequences, and fully aware of the effect upon her of his conduct and treatment, so caused. (8) In 1891 or 1892 the plaintiff became affected with a heart trouble, functional in its nature, which continued thereafter as long as she lived with him, and which was often seriously aggravated by his abuse and ill treatment of her. (9) The plaintiff is a lady of culture and refinement. (10) The defendant when under the influence of liquor, as he very frequently was, was vulgar, profane, brutal, and Jealous. (11) When under the influence of liquor, he frequently, and particularly during the last three years of their married life, used towards his wife, and in her presence, violent, abusive, profane, and obscene language, was persistently unkind to her, and on several occasions falsely accused her of being unchaste and unfaithful to him. (12) When sober the defendant was not Jealous of his wife, and had perfect faith in her innocence and fidelity. (13) The plaintiff has always been a faithful wife. (14) The defendant was fully aware of the nature and extent of his wife's heart trouble, and well knew that his ill treatment of her would aggravate it, and make her seriously ill. (15) Still he continued to humiliate her by his vulgar and profane language, abused her shamefully, with vile and unfounded charges, and at times resorted to brutal violence, when she was ill, and he knew it, thereby knowingly aggravating her illness. On very many occasions his ill treatment made her ill,—a result which he knew would follow such treatment. (16) The defendant has a slight, congenital phimosis,— a fact which he concealed from his wife while they lived together. (17) In 1891, by reason of neglect and uncleanliness on his part, he had from this cause an attack of acute ballinitis, with some complications; and from that time on, and particularly and almost constantly in 1895 and in 1896, until she left him, he had recurring attacks of the same disease, due to the same causes, and in an aggravated form, with considerable inflammation and copious discharge, notwithstanding the fact that he was under medical treatment for the disease. (18) The radical cure for phimosis, which was advised by his physicians, is circumcision—a simple and speedy method, and one causing the patient little pain and annoyance. (19) Ordinary care and cleanliness of person would have avoided these attacks of ballinitis. (20) This disease was Infectious, and could be communicated to his wife by intercourse, and he well knew it. (21) In June, 1895, while he had this disease, and he knew it, and his wife did not know it, he had intercourse with her, at his own solicitation, and communicated to her the disease, resulting in acute urethritis and vaginitis, and later in chronic catarrhal endometritis, which disease caused her great fright and fear, and intense and long-continued suffering, and very seriously impaired her health. She was necessarily subjected to medical treatment for months, and was not cured of the last-named disease until after she left him. (22) After the defendant communicated to the plaintiff, in June, 1895, the disease aforesaid, and she became aware of the fact, as she did almost immediately, she did not cohabit with him, or permit him to have intercourse with her, although he frequently solicited intercourse, notwithstanding the fact that he then had the same disease, and she was still suffering from the disease communicated to her by him as stated, all of which he well knew. During a part of this time she occupied the same bed with him. (23) In February, 1896, he came home from a business trip in an intoxicated condition, still having this disease, and solicited intercourse with her, and, on her refusal, insisted, and attempted to accomplish his purpose with actual violence. He took hold of her throat with one hand, and held her down on the bed with the other, and only desisted from further violence when the plaintiff threatened to call for help. (24) As the result of this treatment the plaintiff was made ill for some days. She had a nervous chill, and was very sick all night. (25) In November, 1895, the plaintiff had been ill for some...