Impolite Language Cited in Divorce

As early as 1898, in Reno Nevada, a six-week residency requirement was all that was needed to be fulfilled for a “quickie divorce.” Nevada soon became known around the world for a willingness to shorten its already brief residency requirement in order to reap the economic benefits of the divorce industry.

‘Dam’ in Divorce Paper Ambiguous

F. B. Finley of Cherokee has furnished a new definition of ambiguity. It appears that in a divorce complaint Mrs. Sadie F. Finley is accused of calling her husband “a dam fool,” which ordinarily is considered explicit enough.

A demurrer filed in the Superior Court, however, declares that this language is unintelligent and ambiguous. According to the demurrer it appears that the time at which such language is used constitutes an important element in judging it.

But the demurrer leaves the public up in the air at that point, failing to state whether the language quoted is to be considered as polite in the morning, harsh at noon and naughty at night, or vice versa. It apparently will be up to the court to fix the rules of etiquette governing the use of endearing terms of the character quoted. 

Here is the language of the demurrer:
“Said complaint is ambiguous in that it is alleged that defendant called plaintiff a ‘dam fool’ and used foul and vulgar names in addressing her; it is nowhere therein alleged, nor can it be ascertained therefrom the time during the month referred to in each of the paragraphs or the occasion upon which the defendant called plaintiff said names and used said language to her.”— The Chico Record, 1916

🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia