Prom Strafford Circuit Court. Libel for divorce, on the ground of extreme cruelty. The cause was tried before Rand, J., who reported as follows : “ Only two assaults, made upon the libellant by the libellee, were proved ; and these were not of a very aggravated nature. But it was in proof that the libellee used very violent language towards the libellant, cursing her at times, and applying indecent epithets to her. This was especially the case during the last two years.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-03-20
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1974
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1The facts found by the court are sufficient, according to my understanding, to constitute legal cruelty, according to the case of Harratt v. Harratt, 7 N.H. 198; — see, also, C_____ v. C_____, 28 Eng. L.
E. 603.
¶2By Carlton v. Carlton, 40 N.H. 14, the witness being under the age of fourteen years, was prima facie incompetent; and this presumption had to be removed in order to his admission. On examination, no want of intelligence was found, and no want of general religious instruction and competency, but only want of knowledge of the nature of an oath. To such a child it must have been easy to communicate the necessary information on that point. The competency was a question of fact, which, being determined by the court below, is not open for revision here. If the objection were that so young a person was by law incompetent, it is removed by the case of Carlton v. Carlton, ubi supra. If the objection were to the fact of competency, the court has not the means to revise the finding, neither has it authority to do so.
