140 Ky. 765 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1910
Opinion of the Court by
Affirming.
Fannie B. Hinkle' and 'James’' L. Hines, aged about 25 years, were married Beoeint/er 11, 1907, and lived foJ gether until Nóvéínbef '5;'1909.'" Blue them left him, and returned to her motber:'“Im'tbe meantime'a girl baby bad been. hórn to theni', Bvbibli at ilie timemf the s-eparation was áb'oiit a' year old. Appellánt filed this suit against her husband on November 15,‘'1909, for "divorce and alimony. The grounds relied'on are that''be bad habitually behaved'toward her for:t.he preceding six months in such cruel and inhuinan manner as tó indicate a 'settled aversion to her, or 'to destroy permanently her peace and happiness ;' also, lie had'attempted to injure her, as indicating am outrageous temper in him, or probable danger to her life and bodily'irijxiry from her remaining with him. 'The proof fails to'sustain any-of the charges. The families of the young people lived'near each other. Each was the youngest child in the family. In each family was a widowed mother,'and'in'the wife’s family two bachelor brothers, and in thé husband’s two spinster sisters. The má'íried couple had' occasional spats, the upshot of nothing in particular. ' The""families meddled and talked, and/neighbors"tattle^ '''The "man appears t'o he a 'slow-moving, undemonstrative perspn) while the
The chancellor upon the record before him, refused to grant appellant a divorce. He required the husband to pay $150 a year for two years for the maintenance of the child — a most liberal allowance for a suckling babe, considering the man’s estate was not worth over $3,500. But appellee does not complain of that. The court made provision for the care of the child, giving its custoclv to the mother, ivith privilege to the father to visit it, and to take it for a week at a time, when it should be weaned, to his home, at his mother’s, where he is now living.
There exists here no ground for divorce. Nor none for alimony. Tt is doubtful if the chancellor has jurisdiction or ought to interfere on the state of the record in the domestic affairs of the family, even by the kind of order entered in this case, though we have no doubt he was endeavoring to protect the child’s welfare, and had the hope that time and opportunity for reflection and mutual explanation might re-unite this family. There