The existence of venereal disease at the time of marriage is held ground for annul ment; Ryder v. Ryder, 66 Vt. 158, 28 Atl. 1029, 44 Am. St. Rep. 833 ; Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 50 N. E. 933, 41 L. R. A. 800, 68 Am. St. Rep. 440 (where there was refusal to consummate and the court confined its decision to that case, considering it the stronger because of the prompt action) ; and it is also, during marriage, cause for divorce, being put upon the ground that the commu nication of such disease to the other spouse is extreme cruelty; Cook v. Cook, 32 N. J. Eq. 475; 28 E. L. & Eq. 603, 29 L. J. Mat. 57; L. R. 1 P. & D. 702, •Curt. 678; McMahen v. McMahen, 186 Pa. 485, 40 Atl. 795, 41 L. R. A. 802 ; Morehouse v. Morehouse, '70 Conn. 420, 39 Atl. 516 ; Holthoefer v. Floltheefer, 47 Mich. 260, 643, 11 N. W. 150 (where the doctrine is sustained; though the divorce was refused in case termed by Cooley, J., as "quite peculiar," the wife being dis eased, with no suspicion against her chastity, and the husband found on examination to have no signs of it); and having the disease has been held sufficient cause without com municating it ; 1 Ilagg. Eccl. 765 ; Canfield v. Canfield, 34 Mich. 519; Hanna v.'Hanna, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 51, 21 S. W. 720 ; where the court was not prepared to say that it would not entitle the wife to a divorce, if the hus band were diseased, without proof that he had communicated it tO her ; a reasonable apprehension of injury is sufficient; A. Hagg. Con. 35. The libellant must have been ig norant as to the existence and nature of the disease, otherwise there may be waiver and condonation ; Rehart v. Rehart (Or.) 25 Pac. 775 ; but if she was ignorant, the divorce will be granted; Wilson v. Wilson, 16 R. L 122, 13 Atl. 102.
held not to be grounds of divorce are that the wife entered into love-making, se cret correspondence and meetings with young men and the like, which the court character ized as "flirting"; Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Pia. 680, 45 South. 1020, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 670 ; the 'refusal of a man to permit hii wife actively to control his business, though it result in the inability to live harmoniously together ; Root v. Root, 164 Mich 638; 130 N. W. 194, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 837, Anti:Cas. 1912B, 740. The practice of Christian Science as 'a doctor by a wife may give her husband ground for divorce under a statute authoriz ing divorce for treatment seriously injuring health or endangering reason, even though Such alleged ifilurY is due to the husband's abnormal sensitiveness; Robinson v. Robin skin; 66 N. H. 600, 28 All. 362, 15 L. R. A. 121, 49 Am. St. Rep. 632.
In the Philippine Islands adultery of the husband must be accompanied by public scan dal and disgraCe to entitle the wife to a di vorce; De La Rama v, De La Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 26 .Sup. 6t. 485,50 L. Ed. 765.
The Divoree Act has been passed in Delaware, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, See ABANDONMENT; ADULTERY; LEGAL CRUELTY; HABITUAL DRUNKARD; INSANITY; IMPOTENCE. As to divorce laws in all-coun tries, see 3 Burge, ColOnial Law, by Renton & Some of the principal defences in suits for divorce are: Connivance, or the corrupt con7 sent of a party to the conduct of the other Party, whereof he afterwards complains.
This bars the right of divorce, no in jury was received; for what a man has con sented to ,he say was an injury; 2 Bish. Mir. & D. § 204. See Brown v. Grove, 116 Ind. 84; 18 N. E. 387, 9 Am. St. Rep. 823; Pettee v. Pettee, 77 Hun 595, 28 N. Y. SuPP. 1067. And this may be passive as well as active; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 87. See Morrison v, Morrison, 136 Mass. 310. See Cotirnivencs. Catunou,. which : is an agreement between husband and wife for one of them to com mit, or appear to commit, a breach of matri monial duty, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain the legal remedy of divorce, as for a real injury. Where the act has not been done, collusion is a real or attempted fraud upon the court ; where it has, it is al so a species of connivance; In either case it is a bar to any claim for divorce; 2 Bish. Mar. & D. § 251. See COLLUSION. Hot, or the conditional forgivenesS or remis sion by the husband or wife of a matrimonial offence which the other has committed. While the condition remains unbroken, con donation, on whatever motive it proceeded, is an absolute bar to the remedy for the par ticular injury condoned ; 2 Bish. Mar. & D. § 268; Farmer v. Farmer, '86 Ala. 322, 5 South. 434; 60 Law J. Prob. 73; O'Connor v. O'Con nor, 109 N. C. 139, 13 S. E. 887 ; Nullmeyer v. Nullmeyer, 49 Ill. App. 573. For the nature of the condition, and other matters, see CON DONATION. ROCritWinatiOn, which is a de fence arising from the complainant's being in like guilt with the one of whom he com plains. It is incompetent for one of the par ties to a marriage to come into court and complain of the other's violation of matri monial duties, if the party complaining is guilty likewise ; Redington v. Redington, 2 Colo. App. 8, 29 'Pac. 811. When the defend ant sets up such violation in answer to the plaintiff's suit, this is called, in the matri monial law, recrimination ; 2 Bish. Mar. & D. § 340. See RECRIMINATION.
The foregoing defences, though available in' all divorce causes, are more frequently ap plicable where a divorce is sought on the ground of adultery.
The consequences of divorce are such as flow from the sentence by operation of law, or flow .from either the sentence or the pro ceeding by reason of their being directly or dered by the court and set down of record. In regard to the former, they are chiefly such as result immediately and necessarily from the definition and nature of a divorce. Being a dissolution of the marriage relation, the parties have no longer any of the rights, nor are subject to any of the duties, pertaining to that relation. They are henceforth' single persons to all intents and purposes. It is true that the statutes of some of the states contain provisions disabling the guilty party from marrying again ; but these are in the nature of penal regulations, collateral to the divorce, and which leave the latter in full force.