ANDREW J. SECOR vs. POLLY SECOR

ANDREW J. SECOR vs. POLLY SECOR. In Equity. No. 3508. I. A divorce will not be granted oñ the ground of the alleged insanity of the wife previous to marriage where more than thirty years have elapsed since the marriage, and a family of children are still living who have reached the age of maturity. II. The use of violent language and irritability of temper are not causes of divorce. III. Where husband and wife agree to live separate and apart from each other, there can be no divorce on the ground of abandonment. STATEMENT OE THE CASE. Petition by the husband for a divorce a vinculo. The complainant sets forth in his petition that, he was married to the defendant in October, 1841. He also states the birth and names of three children, who are now living, and all of whom have arrived at the age of maturity. He further says that when he married the defendant she had been previously afflicted, without his knowledge, with periodical attacks of insanity, and that such attacks have continued ever since, lasting for months together, and rendering it often dangerous for complainant to live with her; that she has been in the habit of abandoning her home and children for months at a time, and is often irritable, profane, and violent in her language; that, owing to her quarrelsomeness and ill-temper, they have lived very unhappily as husband and wife, and that in the month of April, 1873, she refused to live with him any longer, or to perform any of the duties of a wife, and that in consequence of this bad treatment his health is seriously impaired and his life made wretched. Testimony was taken tending to sustain these allegations, and from which testimony it further appears that the marriage took place at Royalton, in the State of New York, and that she on one occasion, at Johnston Creek, in said State, had the door of the house where she then was fastened, and cut both her arms with a razor, and would have bled to death had she not been discovered and taken care of. Witnesses state she was then insane, and that her insanity was probably hereditary. There is no other direct testimony of her insanity previous to her said marriage. The complainant has resided in this District since 1866, but the defendant has never accompanied him, and has always continued to reside in said Eoyalton, and for several years they have lived apart. It also appears from the proofs that in the month of October, 1873, it was agreed by the complainant and defendant that they would live separate and apart from each other, and a division of their property between them was then made by articles of agreement to the satisfaction of both parties, and it was understood that they would live no more together. The bill was dismissed in the court below, and on appeal to the general term the decree was affirmed, the court saying that the alleged insanity of the wife was settled too long ago by the marriage of the parties, and the birth of a family all the members of which have reached the age of maturity, and that a marriage after the lapse of more than thirty years ought not to be disturbed for such a cause. The court also held that where the parties agree to live separate and apart from each other there can be no divorce on the ground of abandonment. Belva A. Lockwood for complainant. No appearance for defendant.