Mahone v. Mahone

Citations

• 19 Cal. 626

Syllabus

<p>To constitute “ habitual intemperance ” within our divorce statute, it is not necessary that the habit of drinking intoxicating liquors to excess be of such a character as to render the party at all times incapable of attending to business; but if there be a habit of drinking to excess to such a degree as to disqualify the party from attending to his business during the principal portion of the time usually devoted to business, it is habitual intemperance—although at intervals he may be in a condition to attend to his business.</p> <p>Where the wife sues for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, and the acts proven were frequently beating, kicking, choking, calling her by the vilest names, and the Court, after stating that differences between husband and wife incident to human nature, occasioning temporary estrangements and strifes, and sometimes accompanied by violence, are not a sufficient ground for divorce, gave the following charge: “ The acts must be persistent, and the cruelty must be so extreme in its nature that in itself it furnishes an apprehension that the continuance of the cohabitation would be attended with bodily harm to the wifeHeld, that the charge was too strong; that such acts of cruelty need not be persistent, nor become a fixed habit, before relief and safety can be had by divorce.</p>