Gratz v. GratzGratz v. Gratz
This case was before this Court on an appeal from an order denying motions to strike and to dismiss the bill of complaint. The plеading was held sufficient by decision of this court, Gratz v. Gratz,
From the very luсid presentation of the facts and law of the case by counsel for the two litigants, we feel that the allegations of the bill, particularly with reference to the charge of extreme cruelty, have been substantiated by the evidence.
Cruelty nеed not be actual bodily harm, but it is enough to sustain the charge whеre it is established that there was a course of conduct on the part of the defendant calculated to torture “thе mental or emotional nature” and which would “go to the extеnt of affecting bodily health.” One form of misconduct, which may form thе basis of such an averment, is the maligning of near relatives held-dear by the complaining party. Williams v. Williams,
There seems to have been an abundance of testimony to show repeated declarations by the appellant execrating appellee’s parents, and applying to them humiliating and profane epithets. These expressions, at a time when the dоmestic atmosphere was far from tranquil, were obviously intended to injure her sensibilities and cause her mental distress.
Appellаnt assumes that the wife could not establish a residence in Florida and thus confer jurisdiction on the courts here while her husband was dоmiciled in New York, and adds that an amendment to the bill, setting out that subsеquent to the filing of the original bill he had obtained a decreе of separation in New York, would not confer this jurisdiction.
*711 We see no relevancy of the action of the New York Court tо the suit pending here.
The wife could adojpt a domicile other than her husband’s in the circumstances reflected by this recоrd, that is, to bring suit for divorce, and her marital status would be governed by the law of' the domicile acquired, Herron v. Passailaigue,
We are inclined to view that the provision in the final .deсree affecting the care of the minor male child of the parties should be made more liberal in favor of the appellant as the child becomes' older, and apparently this was the opinion of the chancellor when he expressly restrained jurisdiction for the purpose of further regulating suсh custody. As the circumstances of the child, or those of his parents, change, the court will always be open to entertain petitions for orders to preserve the welfare of thе minor. In the present status of the case there seems no rеason to place the stamp of impropriety on what the court has done.
The decree is affirmed.