clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 340   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

340 HIGH. COURT OF CHANCERY.
cation here, is by the wife, upon the charge of "cruelty of
treatment," which, upon the allegation of the petitioner, became
so excessive and intolerable, as to compel the petitioner to leave
the house and society of her husband, sometime early in the
year 1850, which she did.
The single inquiry, therefore, is, whether the petitioner, upon
the evidence, has made out such a case as entitles her to the
aid of the court. Has she proved that her husband has been
guilty of cruelty of treatment towards her, aa these wards are
understood in the act of Assembly ? The answer explicitly de-
nies the charge, and recriminates upon the wife, imputing to
her, both before and since the marriage, conduct of the most
reprehensible character, and a vast mass of evidence has been
taken, and a great deal of time consumed, in the discussion of
this evidence. I do not deem it necessary, and I certainly feel
no inclination, to follow counsel in their investigation of facts,
not essential to the point to be decided; and my disinclination
to do so, is not diminished, in this case, by the nature of these
facts.
I conceive, that the question, properly presented in this case,
may be decided, without pronouncing any opinion upon the
truth of the charges contained in the answer, affecting the chas-
tity or sobriety of the complainant. The husband, is not here
asking to be divorced upon the ground of adultery, or miscon-
duct of his wife, in any other respect. She is the complaining
party; praying for a separation from her husband, because, as
she alleges, he has been guilty of "cruelty of treatment," and
the question is, whether she has succeeded in establishing this
allegation; because, if she has not, the application must fail,
whether the recriminatory charges are true or not.
I, therefore, shall express no opinion, one way-or the other,
upon the truth of these charges, and shall confine myself en-
tirely to an examination at the charge of "cruelty," made by
the complainant against the defendant.
In the recent case of Coles vs. Coles, which was aa applica-
tionfor a divorce, a mensa et thoro, I had occasion to look into
this subject, and to inquire, how the term "cruelty"is. under'

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 340   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives