Brereton v. Brereton

5 Conn. Supp. 194, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 100
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided June 28, 1937·No. File #52529·Published

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

A study of the transcript in this case and a re-reading of Jacobs vs. Jacobs, 95 Conn. 57, and Van Guilder vs. Van Guilder, 100 Conn. 1, have convinced me that the requirements of the statute have not been met. As indicated by the citations, intolerable cruelty does not necessarily mean daily beatings. The conduct of the defendant must, however, be “such that the public and personal objects of matrimony have been destroyed beyond rehabilitation.” McEvoy vs. McEvoy, 99 Conn. 427, 432.

The principal complaints of the plaintiff are that her husband was late to- dinner, was inconsiderate and drank more than he should. The plaintiff is apparently a woman of cul[195]*195ture and refinement but this does not relieve her of the duty of proving her case.

Morehouse vs. Morehouse, 70 Conn. 420, 427.

Complaint dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brereton v. Brereton, 5 Conn. Supp. 194, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 100 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

5 Conn. Supp. 194 (Brereton v. Brereton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacobs v. Jacobs
110 A. 455 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1920)
McEvoy v. McEvoy
122 A. 100 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1923)
Morehouse v. Morehouse
39 A. 516 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1898)