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 3, Page 55   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

BOWIC VS. BOWIC. 55
quent use of intoxicating drink, that does not in any way
diminish the title of the wife to the aid of this Court.
But it appears that, after the separation in 1847, the parties
lived together, and I do not find in the proof that, between
their reunion and the second separation in 1849, the defen-
dant's behavior towards his wife was such as to bring it within
the terms of the Act of Assembly, as those terms have been
construed by the Courts, that is, that he has been guilty of
acts of personal violence towards her, or exposed her to danger
of life, limb, or health.
There can be no doubt, and for reasons which are obvious,
that the forgiveness of the wife of injuries inflicted upon her
by her husband is not pressed with the same rigor against her
as would the forgiveness of the husband of the misconduct of
the wife be pressed against him. The difference between con-
donation on the part of the husband and the wife, and the
reasons for the difference, are stated in Shelford on Marriage
and Divorce, 454, et seq.; and the authorities cited show that
a much less stringent rule is applied to the wife than to the
husband. But still, after the parties have become reconciled,
the Courts are averse to reviving or listening to old grounds of
complaint, which it were better should be forgotten, as well as
forgiven.
In this view of the case, I am not much inclined to give
weight to the evidence which speaks of the conduct of the
husband prior to the first separation in 1847, and certainly it
seems to me there is no ground to pronounce a sentence of
separation between these parties for anything which has oc-
curred since then. There is, moreover, a circumstance in this
case worth considering, when the question is, with what degree
of indulgence should the complainant's reconciliation with her
husband after 1847 be regarded. Condonation, say the books,
with respect to a woman, is held not to bear so strictly,
"because it is not improper she should for a time show a
patient forbearance;" "she may find a difficulty in quitting
his house or withdrawing from his bed;" "she must submit to
necessity;"—reasons which do not apply to the husband.

  		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 3, Page 55   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives