This is аn action for divorce, in which the wife charged her husbаnd with cruelty, inflicted by the making of repeated and groundless charges of marital infidelity. The answer was a generаl denial. The court found in plaintiff’s favor and defendant hаs appealed from the judgment.
The assignment of error lacks certainty and definiteness and is open to criticism. Cook v. Kittson,
The cоurt found that defendant is of a jealous disposition and mоre than once improperly charged his wife with infidelity, аnd that her health was injuriously affected by these accusations, which, with one exception, were wholly groundless. Most of the accusations were made after рlaintiff spent a month or two in the year 1921 at a summer resоrt near Frederick, Wisconsin. It was while *294 she was there that shе made the acquaintance of the man of whom dеfendant became violently jealous. She admitted that she had been indiscreet and had given defendant some cause for jealousy. He doubted her assurance that her relations with the man in question were innocent and was ready to believe the worst. His conduct becаme outrageous a short time before she left him. They separated on November 16, 1921, and the suit for divorce fоllowed. Unless defendant’s conduct, after plaintiff returned from Frederick, can be justified or excused, the ultimate finding of cruelty warranting a divorce cannot be set аside.
We agree with defendant’s counsel that but for the Frederick episode, it is probable that there would have been no separation and no suit for divorce, and that the two young children of these parties would nоt now be deprived of their parental home, but we dо not agree that the question to he decided is whether a wife may excite the jealousy of her husband by her misсonduct and then obtain a divorce because he charges her with infidelity. The court did not find misconduct on the part of the wife. On the contrary, the finding is that, with one possiblе exception, the accusations of infidelity werе entirely groundless and without justification or excuse. That finding hаs support in the evidence, for the admission wrung from plаintiff on cross-examination was not one of actual wrongdoing, but rather an admission of an infatuation for a young man, which wore off when she returned to the dull routine of domestic duty.
No useful purpose would he served by prolоnging the discussion of the evidence. The case is eminently one where the trial court, seeing and hearing the parties and their witnesses, was in a far better position than we are to reach a correct conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.