CONDONATION. The conditional for giveness or remission, by a husband or wife, of a matrimonial offence which the other has committed.
"A blotting out of an imputed offence against the marital relation so as to restore the offending party to the same position he or she occupied before the offence was com mitted." 1 Sw. & Tr. 334. See, as to this , definition, 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. § 35; Odom v. Odom, 36 Ga. 286; [1893] P. D. 313.
While the condition remains unbroken, condonation, on whatever motive it proceed ed, is an absolute bar to the remedy for the particular injury condoned; Bish. Mar. & Div. § 354.
The doctrine of condonation is chiefly, though not exclusively, applicable to the of fence of adultery. It may be either express, i. e. signified by words or writing, or implied from the conduct of the parties. The lattei, however, is much .the more common; and it is in regard to that that the chief legal diffi culty has arisen. The only general rule is, that any cohabitation with the guilty party. after the commission of the offence, and with the knowledge or belief on the part of the injured party of its commission, will amount to conclusive evidence of condona tion; but this presumption may be rebutted by evidence; 60 L. J. Prob. 73. The con struction, however, is more strict when the wife than when the husband is the delin quent party ; Bish. Mar. & Div. § 355; Miles v. Miles, 101 111. App. 406. A mere promise to condone is not in itself a condonation; 1 Sw. & Tr. 183 ; Quarles v. Quarles, 19 Ala. 363; but see, contra, Christianberry v. Chris tianberry, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 202, 25 Am. Dec. 96, where there was only an unaccepted in ducement held out to the wife to return. Knowledge of the offence is essential ; Burns v. Burns, 60 Ind. 259; Turnbull v. Turnbull, 23 Ark. 615; Connelly v. Connelly, 98 Mo. App. 95, 71 S. W. 1111. A divorce will not be granted for adultery where the parties continue to live together after it was known; Land v. Martin, 46 La. Ann. 1246, 15 South. 657; Day v. Day, 71 Kan. 385, 80 Pac. 974, 6 Ann. Cas. 169; or there is sexual inter course after knowledge of the adultery; Rogers v. Rogers, 67 N. J. Eq. 534, 58 Atl.
822; or sleeping together for a single night; Toulson v. Toulson, 93 Md. 754, 50 Atl. 401; Todd v. Todd (N. J.) 37 Atl. 766 (the wife alleging that he had intercourse with her) ; contra, where for three or four nights they occupied the same bed, but there was no reconciliation and no sexual intercourse; Hann v. Hann, 58 N. J. Eq. 211, 42 Atl. or where they continued to cohabit but a disease was communicated to the wife; Muir v. Muir, 92 S. W. 314, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1355, 4 L. It. A. (N. S.) 909; or where the hus band had a venereal disease which he told the wife was the result of an injury ; Wil kins v. Wilkins (N. J.) 58 Atl. 821; or where the wife denied actual guilt, and the hus band, after belief in her innocence was no longer possible, left her ; Gosser v. Gosser, 183 Pa. -499, 38 Atl. 1014 ; or where the hus band lied to the wife as to his offence, and she left him after she learned the truth; Merrill v. Merrill, 41 App. Div. 347, 58 N. Y. Supp. 503.
Every implied condonation is upon the im plied condition that the party forgiven will abstain from the commission of the like of fence thereafter ; and also treat the forgiv ing party, in all respects, with conjugal kindness. Such, at least, is the better opin ion; though the latter branch of the propo sition has given rise to much discussion. It is not necessary, therefore, that the sub sequent injury be of the same kind, or prov ed with the same clearness, or sufficient of itself, when proved, to warrant a divorce or separation. Accordingly, it seems that a course of unkind and cruel treatment will revive condoned adultery, though the latter be a ground of divorce a vinctao matrimonki, while the former will, at most, only author ize a separation from bed and board ; John son v. Johnson, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 637; War ner v. Warner, 31 N. J. Eq. 225 ; Wagner v. Wagner, 6 Mo. App. 573; Atteberry v. Atte berry, 8 Or. 224. Acts of cruelty against a wife revive acts of cruelty which have been condoned; Straus v. Straus, 67 Hun 491, 22 N. Y. Supp. 567 ; Denison v. Denison, 4 Wash. 705, 30 Pac. 1100.