Plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to prove one act of illicit intercourse on the part of the husband, defendant. Without evidenceultra, the trial judge thereupon intimated that he would charge the jury that in it no aspect of the evidence was the plaintiff entitled to the relief prayed for, in that the laws of North Carolina did not allow a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony for one act of adultery on the part of the husband. Thereupon plaintiff, having excepted, submitted to a nonsuit and appealed. After stating the case: Under The Code of 1883, sec. 1285, and for years prior thereto, the causes for absolute divorce in this State were as follows: (1) If either party shall separate from the other and live in adultery. (2) If the wife shall commit adultery. (3) If either party, at the time of the marriage, was and still is naturally impotent. (4) If the wife, at the time of the marriage, be pregnant and the husband be ignorant of the fact of such pregnancy and be not the father of the child with which the wife was pregnant at the time of the marriage. By chapter 499, Laws 1905, the first clause of the foregoing section was stricken out and there were substituted the words, "If the husband shall commit fornication and adultery," making that part of the law, in effect, as follows: That an absolute divorce shall be granted, (a) if the husband shall commit fornication and adultery, and (b) if the wife shall commit adultery.
To adopt the position contended for by the plaintiff would require that these terms should have one and the same meaning, whereas the marked *Page 165 difference in the two clauses, standing as they do in such close juxtaposition, gives clear indication that the Legislature intended to make a distinction between the man and the woman in this feature of our laws of divorce, and we are of opinion that, in allowing a divorce when the man shall "commit fornication and adultery," it was intended to give those terms the distinctive meaning acquired by the words when associated together and as contained in section 3350 of the Revisal, defining the crime of "fornication and adultery." The uniform construction put upon this statute has established that, to constitute fornication and adultery, the misconduct must be habitual, and the General Assembly was no doubt advertent to this construction in making the amendment referred to.
There are grave reasons for the distinction made by this (227) legislation, which the General Assembly evidently regarded as controlling, but, being matters more properly for legislative consideration, they are not specified or dwelt upon here, and are only referred to in a general way in support of the construction we have given the statute. It is argued that this interpretation would leave the amendment without any force or effect on the law as it formerly stood, but a reference to the statute will readily indicate the change that was made and intended. Formerly, in order to obtain a divorce for such misconduct on the part of the husband, it was required that he should withdraw from his household and live in adultery, or force the wife to leave him, while this is now no longer required.
We think his Honor correctly interpreted the amendment, and there is no error in his decision.
Affirmed.