Shook v. Shook

• Decision Date: 12 October 1901
• Citation: 87 N.W. 680,114 Iowa 592
• Parties: ORA SHOOK v. JACOB SHOOK et al., Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

87 N.W. 680

114 Iowa 592

ORA SHOOK v. JACOB SHOOK et al., Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 12, 1901

Appeal from Davis District Court.--HON. F. W. EICHELBERGER, Judge.

ACTION for divorce. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Smoot Mudd & Wagner and McNett & Tisdale for appellant.

H. C Traverse and H. C. Taylor for appellee.

OPINION

LADD, J.

The parties married at leisure and repented in haste. The defendant was a widower of 56 years, when married in June 1898, and of avoirdupois 105 pounds; the plaintiff was 36 years his junior--20 years old--at that time, and 50 pounds heavier. They had courted 4 years, but lived together as husband and wife less than 6 months. He had 460 acres of unincumbered land; she had youth, and, it is said, beauty as well. He was industrious, but unlearned; she could read and sing. Both were accomplished in this: they knew how to work. Though reared in town, she accommodated herself to the new situation on a farm five miles in the country, where he had lived 50 years. Not a day was lost after the wedding, and everything went tolerably well until he undertook to open the book of her past life at the wrong page. True, he had transferred 320 acres of his land to his son in September the deed to which she had willingly signed, though under the supposition that but 160 acres were included. This was on the pretext of buying a place and residing in town, abandoned as soon as the deed was safety delivered. Yet he had already inflicted the petty punishment of turning her riding pony to pasture purposely to deprive her of its use, and, rather than stop a team from work, had allowed her to undertake a 10-mile journey on foot to Bloomfield and return, and then cursed the neighbor who was kind enough to invite her to ride, and her for accepting the invitation. So, too, had he twitted, her, without the slightest cause, of going to town to meet traveling men, rather than to purchase necessaries. But he had been generous in that he had bought screens for part of the porch,--a thing, as he remarked, never thought of by his first wife; and had talked about buying furniture,--even reached the point where she had blacked his boots preparatory to starting for the store. Indeed, that extravagance would never never have been obviated had he not bethought himself of the vile slander that she had admitted to his daughter-in-law that when at Cedar Rapids shortly before their marriage, she had slept with her sister's husband. Of course, this topic immediately superseded the purchase of furniture. The malice appeared in the omission of the portion of the story relieving it of any imputation of immorality. It seems the sister's husband, who was a traveling man, had returned home at 4 o'clock in the morning, and slept in his clothes on the outside of the bedding with the sister between them; and the latter had joked her about sleeping with a man. But the daughter-in-law and defendant insist she omitted the explanation, and boasted of her shame. The story is improbable. It is denied by plaintiff and her brother-in-law. Her subsequent conduct refutes it. We do not believe it. He admits that she pouted a week, and refused to sleep with him; while other proof shows she wept bitterly over the false accusation. Whether he betook himself to the woods for his meals at this time is in dispute. Certain it is, the days away from her in the field were scarcely long enough for him; and the wife he claims to have always addressed as "darling," and "every bone in her body" to have loved, received but scant attention. With such a companion well might she sigh "Oh it is so lonesome out here " The trouble seemed to lie in the very peculiar way defendant had in manifesting his affections. For instance, her mother invited them to take Christmas dinner in town. He flatly refused, on the ground that the brother-in-law would be there, though entirely without information on this point, which was untrue; and seized the first opportunity of repeating the scandal mentioned, to her mother and brother. The indignation of the latter was only suppressed by threats. The answer of wife and mother was made in tears. As her brother was about to leave for the army, she insisted on accepting the invitation, although forbidden, and left Bloomfield with his denunciations as "bitch" and "whore" ringing in her ears. He lost little time in declaring, with simulated regret, that his wife had abandoned him. But she came back the day after Christmas and found her trunk packed. Who did it we shall not stop to decide. He either did not notice her, or merely remarked, "You got back, did...