DIVORCE CRAZE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 18, 23 January 1933, Page 10

DIVORCE CRAZE.

TREND IN AMERICA. CAUSE ALMOST ' ANYTHING JUDGE GIVES ADVICE. SAX FRANCISCO, January 4. Almost anything, as evidenced by the thousands of divorce cases on file in San Francisco Courts, can be a cause for divorce. Apparently there is hardly a matrimonial incident that cannot, through influence of circumstances or temperament, become a "cruelty." And '"cruelties" on record rangg from a wife who cracked walnuts with her teeth to the husband who insisted on feeding the baby—from the husband who lavished top many kisses on his spouse to the husband who refused to let his wife kiss him at all. Most divorces are sought, and won, on grounds of cruelty. There are divorces for neglect, and for desertion, to be sure. But seven out of ten of San Francisco domestic rifts result from '"cruelties" of some sort or other. The wife who used the oral walrut cracker embarrassed her husband before quests. And more than that, she finally broke a molar, which necessitated an expensive trip to the dentist. When he chided her, so he alleged, she became enraged and accused him of not wanting her to have proper dental attention. He got the divorce. And the wife who had the husband who monopolised the feeding of the baby discovered, finally, that she merely had married too much of a good thing in the way of a provider and protector. He protected her even from the work she wanted to do. He was constantly dashing home to see that everything was going smoothly. When, she finally 'objected, he told her lie considered her "too dumb" to feed their offspring properly. And she got her divorce. A few months ago there was a bride who married without learning to cook. She admitted her ignorance of culinary arts to her husband, and they lived happily -until one evening when he brought home guests for dinner. The resulting embarrassment to her, the Court decided, was worth an interlocutory degree. Cases of wives who sue because their husbands insist on lavishing on them' too much affection —on kissing them on every possible occasion—are numerous. Courts have ruled time after time that too many kisses constitute cruelty. Other CaSes. Then there came the case of the San Francisco school teacher who wouldn't let his wife kiss him at <all. He told her it spoiled his tennis game. The Court decided that that, too, was cruelty, and gave her a decree. There was another wife who had a husband whose work necessitated his" arising at seven each morning. So far as anything in the record shows, she was a perfect wife, affectionate, considerate and helpful, for a long time. Each morning she was awakened by the jangle ,of the alarm clock 7 a.m. One morning the alarm rang and she reached for it, as usual. But instead of shutting off the bell, as was her custom, she seized the timepiece and bounced it on her drowsy husband's head. He sued, and got a decree. There was the sailor, who married the girl who assured, him she never had 'been married 'before. But after the ceremony she told him she had a former husband who was an admiral, and proceeded to use her matrimonial history for selfish gain, according to «a complaint he filed seeking divorce. She demanded his entire salary, so he charged, and said if he complained she would use her influence with her former mate to "break" him.' Finally he mutinied, matrimonially, and steered the marital barque into the courts. The case has not come to trial because the admiral mentioned declared he did. not know the lady and never had. A woman came into Court complaining that her husband cried at the slightest provocation. Any little domestic difficulty, she declared, sent tears streaming down his cheeks. She' believed he ran a. cigar -store. But, she testified, after two years of married'life she discovered he was a bootlegger who was considered "a tough guy" by his ■colleagues. 1 . . Treasures Cited. One of the most bizarre matrimonial situations ever recorded in San Francisco was brought to the attention- of the courts when an attorney sought divorce recently. He averred that his wife had fallen in love with a hosiery salesman, that they had admitted love, and had given him a year in which to woo his wife hack. He admitted he had failed when he filed for divorce. It is rare when a court will fail to grant a divorce. But petitions for annulments of marriages are denied frequently. An annulment, it must be understood, entitles either party to it to remarry at once. Because of this, annulments are strictly circumscribed:by law. Grounds are few and hard Vt'o prove. In past years, the husband rarely appeared as the plaintiff in a divorce action. He felt chivalry demanded that, whatever the reason for the divorce, his wife should appear as the injured party. For years San Francisco divorce records showed only about two men to every eight women in the plaintiffs' class. But the ratio is changing. During the last two years it has been almost four to six. Judge Graham's Belief. As to the reason for this, anyone's guess is as good as another, in the belief of Superior Judge Graham, one of California's best-known divorce jurists. "It may be because men resent women usurping what used to be called 'men's prerogatives,'" he said. "Again, it may be because the economic upheaval of the last few years has resulted in a shifting of the old standards of domestic relationship. "Be that as it may, there are more men seeking divorce than formerly. But I find that men, after getting into Court, are usually sheepishly grateful when the wife files a cross complaint, and are willing to let her take the decree. "Almost anything that a wife says or does to a husband or a husband to a a wife," he went on, "may be cited as grounds for divorce if the other party does not contest the action. "I doubt that there is a husband or a wife that could not, if he or she desired, find sufficient grounds for divorce in their married experience.