A public accusation of unchastity, either in or out of the presence of the wife, is a greater degree of legal cruelty than one made in private ; Graft v. Graft, 76 Ind. 136 ; Cass v. Cass, 34 La. Ann. 611; Crow v. Crow, 29 Or. 392, 45 Pac. 761; and it is legal cruelty for a wife to accuse her hus band constantly, publicly, and without cause, of unfaithfulness to her, thereby disgracing him and endangering his means of liveli hood ; Whitmore v. Whitmore, 49 Mich. 417, 13 N. W. 800; but it has been held that adultery itself is not cruelty; Haskell v. Haskell, 54 Cal. 262.
The following have been held' cruelty : An attempt to kill ; Wand v. Wand, 14 Cal. 512 ; Dillon v. Dillon, 32 La. Ann. 644 ; an attempt to poison ; Hie v. Itie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Peavey v. Peavey, 76 Ia. 443, 41 N. W. 67; Jones v. Jones, 66 Pa. 494 ; choking ; Mercer v. Mer cer, 114 Ind. 558, 17 N. E. 182; Thompson v. Thompson, 79 Mich. 124, 44 N. W. 424 ; kick ing ; Hughes v. Hughes, 19 Ala. 307 ; Sharp v. Sharp, 116 Ill. 509, 6 N. E. 15 ; Schichtl v. Schichtl, 88 Ia. 210, 55 N. W. 309 ; Myers v. Myers, 83 Va. 806, 6 S. E. 630; whipping ; Gholston v. Gholston, 31 Ga. 625 ; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 65 Md. 104, 3 Atl. 749; spitting in the face ; Clutch v. Clutch, 1 N. J. Eq. 474 ; Beatty v. Beatty, Wright (Ohio) 557; com municating venereal disease ; Venzke v. Ven zke, 94 Cal. 225, 29 Pac. 499 ; inexcusable neglect during sickness; Doolittle v. Doo little, 78 Ia. 691, 43 N. W. 616, 6 L. R. A. 187 ; Sharp v. Sharp, 116 Ill. 509, 6 N. E. 15; Mer cer v. Mercer, 114 Ind. 558, 17 N. E. 182 ; the commission of certain crimes, such as rape ; Fleming v. Fleming, 95 Cal. 430, 30 Pac. 566, 29 Am. St. Rep. 124 ; keeping a mistress ; [1891] Prob. 189.
Where acts of violence have been condon ed, wilfully depriving a wife of her proper position in the household, neglecting her, degrading her to the level of a servant, and compelling her to do the menial work of the house, and to take her meals and to sleep apart from the rest of the household, was held, in itself, legal cruelty ; 72 L. T. 295. The husband is responsible for the ill-treat ment of his wife by persons whom he sup ports in his house in spite of her remon strances, and where she is justified in ap prehensions of personal violence from them, she is entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and personal indignities ; Hall v. Hall, 9 Or. 452; exces sive sexual intercourse is legal cruelty, and It may be shown by the wife's testimony ; Melvin v. Melvin, 58 N. H. 569, 42 Am, Hap, 605. A husband who unreasonably and brutally has sexual intercourse with his wife to the injury of her health is guilty of intol erable cruelty; Mayhew v. Mayhew, 61 Conn. 233, 23 Atl. 966, 29 Am. St. Rep. 195. The refusal of a husband to have sexual inter course with his wife is not cruel and in human treatment or ground for a divorce et vinottio• Schoessow v. Schoessow, 83 Wis. 553, 53 N. W. 856.
Charges by a husband of beating and bruising by his wife, with expressions of a wish that he were dead. and suggestions of poisoning him, are held such inhuman treat ment as to endanger life ; Beebe v. Beebe,
10 Ia. 133. So any course of conduct which would have the effect of impairing health would be legal cruelty ; Day v. Day, 84 IL 221, 50 N. W. 979.
A wife's habitual use of profanity and tell ing of obscene stories before others in her husband's presence is ground for divorce; Mosher v. Mosher, 16 N. D. 269, 113 N. W. 99, 12 L.•t. A. (N. S.) 820, 125 Am. St. Rep. 654. So is applying vile epithets, accom panied with physical violence ; Andrews v. Andrews, 120 Cal. 184, 52 Pac. 298; Douglass v. Douglass, 81 Ia. 258, 47 N. W. 92; Day v. Day, 56 N. H. 316. A series of assaults on one day may be "persistent cruelty" un der the English act providing for separation and a support order for the wife; Broad v. Broad, 78 L. T. R. 687. It seems that when a physician, desiring not to have children, persuaded his wife that it was dangerous for her to have children and induced her to sub mit to an operation which caused much suf fering, it was cruel and inhuman treatment; Sheldon v. Sheldon, 146 App. Div. 430, 131 N. Y. Supp. 291.
A woman marrying a drunkard with full knowledge is not on that account held to take without redress the risk of anything that may happen to her as a result of his con tinued drunken habits; Walker v. Walker, 77 L. T. R. 715.
Desertion and failure to support a wife when during the time she had been seriously ill and greatly in need of the assistance, and of the society, nursing, and comfort of her husband, was held legal cruelty on the ground that it inflicted on her mental suf fering and public disgrace ; Eastes v. Eastes, 79 Ind. 363. A wife is entitled to a divorce for legal cruelty where the acts complained of are the result of insane delusion ; Smith v. Smith, 33 N. J. Eq. 458. But it has been held that a single act of personal violence does not constitute cruelty ; Hoshall v. Hos hall, 51 Md. 72, 34 Am. Rep. 298; and that insulting and degrading language to her is not ground for a divorce, although in case of actual cruelty it may be shown in ag gravation ; Folmar v. Folmar, 69 Ala. 84; and misunderstandings and difficulties be tween husband and wife will not afford a foundation for a divorce ; Castan6do v. For tier, 34 La. Ann. 135 ; nor will a succession of petty annoyances, complaints, fault-find mg, and disparagement of the husband's common sense constitute legal cruelty to him; Johnson v. Johnson, 49 Mich. 639, 14 N. W. 670. In Russell v. Russell the English court of appeal held that: (1) A false charge of having committed an unnatural crime cir culated by a wife against her husband, al though published to the world and persisted in after she did not believe its truth, is not sufficient evidence of legal cruelty to entitle the husband to a judicial separation ; (2) but was enough to justify the court in refus ing a petition of the wife for a restitution of conjugal rights ; [1895] Prob. 315; af firmed in the House of Lords as to (1), the second contention having been with drawn ; four judges out of nine dissented; 11897] A. C. 395.
See DIVORCE.