EXTRAORDINARY DIVORCE CASE.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 607, 30 May 1876, Page 3

EXTRAORDINARY DIVORCE CASE.

The San Francisco Bulletin writes:— Thursday (24th February) in the temple of justice, familiarly known as the Nineteenth District Court, Emily K. Parnham and John H Farnham were divorced from each other the second time. In the first proceeding for severing the silken strings of matrimony, the wifp was the plaintiff, charging the defendant with many failings, among them a failure to provide. After the decree separating them was ordered, they met again, courted anew, forgot the past, made fine promises for the future, and were married for the second time in December, 1869. Now the wife, again the plaintiff, charges her husband with failure to provide and adultery, and defendant charges her with extreme cruelty, through which life is rendered miserable. The Judge, in reviewing the case, said in substance :—I am satisfied that Mrs Farnham boasted that she would ruin her husband, and also declared that she would render his life miserable. The defendant is accused of using towards his wife violence, vulgarity and profanity. There is evidence showing that he is a mild-man-nered man. free from vulgarity and profanity in his language. As to violence, it is not shown that he used any. The only thing he used towards his wife was a cane-bottomed chair to shield his head from dishes, glasses, and other articles that she was accustomed to hurl after him. He would simply hold up a chair in order to retreat safely through the doorway of the house to the barn. It is in evidence that he passed several nights in the barn to escape her violence. On one occasion she wounded him in the head with a castor. " I was curious," said the Judge, " to know why they married a second time, and upon inquiring I found it a case of mutual infatuation, in which each one love J and feared the other. During the first and second marriages these little conflicts appeared at frequent intervals. I am convinced that she of extreme cruelty, and has rendered his life miserable, and therefore the divorce is granted. As to alimony, I think Farnham should pay something for the indulgence of the second infatuation, but I will make the sum small. The order is that he pay 250 dollars to plaintiff's counssl."