Pedrick v. Pedrick

• Decision Date: 05 November 1930
• Citation: 152 A. 83
• Parties: PEDRICK v. PEDRICK.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

152 A. 83

PEDRICK

v. PEDRICK.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Nov. 5, 1930.

Outbursts of passion and jealousy and physical treatment bestowed upon husband were not crimes, but were infirmities and defects which, in consideration of law, husband undertakes to put up with while proof was not satisfactory and convincing that husband's health had been seriously impaired by reason of charges of illicit relations with other women or notoriety arising by reason thereof, so as to constitute extreme cruelty.

Petition for divorce by Dorothy Simkins Pedrick against Leonard F. Pedrick.

Decree nisi advised.

Bourgeois & Coulomb, of Atlantic City, for petitioner.

Emerson L. Richards, of Atlantic City, for defendant.

INGERSOLL, Vice Chancellor.

The petition is based upon desertion. The defense is that the defendant was compelled to leave his home because "petitioner is possessed of an ungovernable temper and an insane jealousy which causes her to accuse defendant with having committed adultery with every woman with whom he and his wife were mutually acquainted, and to accuse him of illicit relations with almost all other women with whom he may have come in contact in his business, and as a result of such accusations has made life utterly miserable for defendant and also as a result of such unjustifiable jealousy petitioner has worked herself, on many occasions, to such a rage as to violently assault defendant, and other times to create such scenes that would utterly unnerve defendant so that he was unable to conduct his business," and that by reason thereof that such conduct and the physical violence offered him by his wife was rapidly undermining his health and he was compelled to leave his home against his will.

Excluding for the moment her charges of adultery, her ungovernable temper, her outbursts of passion and jealousy and the physical treatment bestowed upon him, and her perseverance in tantalizing him are not crimes but are infirmities and defects which, in consideration of law, a husband undertakes to put up with when he takes his wife for better or worse.

Sir William Scott in Evans v. Evans, 1 Hagg. Cons. 35-40, referring to cruelty, said:

"What merely wounds the mental feelings is in few cases to be admitted where they are not accompanied with bodily injury, either actual or menaced. Mere austerity of temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and accommodation, even occasional sallies of passion, if they do not threaten bodily harm, do not amount to legal cruelty; they are...