Ahrns v. Ahrns

• Decision Date: 16 October 1914
• Citation: 160 Ky. 342,169 S.W. 720
• Parties: AHRNS v. AHRNS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

169 S.W. 720

160 Ky. 342

AHRNS v. AHRNS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 16, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Campbell County.

Suit by Elizabeth Ahrns against George Ahrns. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Horace W. Root, of Newport, for appellant.

John W Heuver and Howard M. Benton, both of Newport, for appellee.

MILLER J.

Appellant Elizabeth Ahrns, and appellee, George Ahrns, were married on October 9, 1910. For a short time thereafter they lived with his mother, and then moved into a house of their own. They lived together until January 13, 1913, when they separated each claiming that the other was in fault. Appellee is a carpenter with steady employment, and earning $20 a week. The home in which they lived is owned by them jointly, with the right of survivorship. In buying the home, she invested $636 of her money; he invested $744 of his money; and there is now a mortgage upon the property to a building and loan association for about $400.

According to appellant's story, while she and appellee were living together, on January 13, 1913, appellee came home in the evening, and, without any excuse, maliciously broke and destroyed the household furniture and pictures, and cut the top of a leather couch with a saw to such an extent that it had to be entirely re-covered at a cost of about $8. She further says he dashed two clocks from the mantel to the floor with great force, breaking and destroying them, and pulled several pictures and mirrors from the wall, stamping upon, breaking, and absolutely destroying them. The appellant contends that these articles thus destroyed were her property. Appellant thereupon caused the arrest of the appellee upon a charge of disorderly conduct.

When the case was first called for trial, appellee was asked if there was any chance for a reconciliation between his wife and himself, and it is claimed he said he would never live with her again; and, when the prosecuting attorney suggested to appellee that he would then have to contribute or provide for his wife's support, appellee responded that he was not liable for alimony because there were no children of the marriage. However, when the case was tried some four or five days later, appellee pleaded guilty and agreed to pay his wife for the damage he had done to her property. In carrying out this agreement he paid her $20, and the further sum of $8 for the re-covering of the couch he had destroyed.

According to appellee's story, about two weeks after the couple had gone to live with his mother, appellant accused appellee's mother of making disparaging remarks about her wedding ring, and from that time she seemed to have conceived a violent dislike towards his mother. Finding it would be impossible to continue to live in his mother's house appellant and appellee bought the new home, as above indicated, and moved there. Appellee contends that appellant has an ungovernable temper; that she felt she had degraded herself by marrying the appellee to such an extent that she requested people to address her by her former name of Mrs. Jones; that she ordered goods from a store in her former name of Mrs. Jones; that she cursed and abused appellee and his mother; and that her conduct throughout the trial in the police court was solely for the purpose of laying a foundation for bringing a suit for alimony.

On the day of the trial, and after it had ended, appellant brought this action against the appellee for a divorce a mensa and for alimony, upon the ground that appellee had been guilty of such cruel and inhuman treatment as to indicate a settled aversion to her and to destroy permanently her peace and happiness. The chancellor made an allowance to appellant of $5 per week pendente lite; but, upon a final trial of the case, the petition was dismissed. From that judgment the wife appeals.

It is stipulated of record that the property was bought and paid for in the manner and to the extent above indicated; that the taxes thereon amount to $35 a year; that appellee has improved the property at an expense of about $250; and that the dues to the building association on the mortgage debt are $1.60 per week. Appellant has continued to occupy the house ever since the separation on January 13, 1913. The appellee is 42...