Arnold v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 02 November 1914
• Docket Number: 210
• Citation: 170 S.W. 486,115 Ark. 32
• Parties: ARNOLD v. ARNOLD
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

170 S.W. 486

115 Ark. 32

ARNOLD v. ARNOLD

No. 210

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 2, 1914

Appeal from Howard Chancery Court; Jas D. Shaver, Chancellor affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellant instituted this suit against the appellee in May, 1913 alleging that they were married in 1902, and lived together until January, 1913, at which time the appellant abandoned the appellee. She alleged that about two years after their marriage appellee became quarrelsome and was rude toward and neglectful of the appellant, and that this disposition toward her became more pronounced as the years went on; that appellee failed to provide for her, and that after a child was born to them he still failed to provide support for appellant and their child; that appellant earned by her own labor support for herself and child, and since the year 1906 all that she had been able to accumulate had been expended in the support of herself, her child and appellee. The gravamen of her complaint as to indignities is as follows: "That the indignities offered to the plaintiff by the defendant consists of insult, rudeness, abuse, threatening to whip her making demonstrations, refusing to permit her and her child to go to Sunday school and church without a row, which conduct was systematically pursued by defendant toward plaintiff until her condition was rendered intolerable and she was forced to leave defendant and go to the home of her father for protection."

Appellee denied those allegations of appellant's complaint which set up her cause for divorce.

The appellant testified, in substance, that about two years after her marriage with the appellee that he began abusing and quarreling with her, and from that time on failed to provide for her. She stated that she began work to provide for her family in 1906 because she was really in need. From 1910 until 1912 they rented a house from Banks Wright and she paid the rent out of her own earnings. During that time appellee was very quarrelsome and abusive toward her. From 1906 to 1913 she had earned the sum of $ 1,458.75 in money, which was used in supporting the family. They had to give up the house because the conduct of her husband was so bad toward her that the landlord, Mr. Wright, requested them to move out. While abusing and quarreling at her, defendant would say "that she was crazy." He also threatened her with violence with a club a few days before she left him. About three days after that they were having other trouble, and she told the defendant she was not going to live with him any longer. Defendant had made nothing for herself or the baby, and he had not supplied anything for their support since she left him. He often quarreled with her in the presence of others. He often used insulting and abusive language toward her in the presence of Mr. Banks Wright. Her health got so bad that she was unable to live with him at all, and was that way for several months before she did leave him, and he got worse all the time. The defendant failed to provide for her and her child and refused to furnish a doctor when they were sick.

There is much more of appellant's testimony, but it is unnecessary to set the same out in detail. The above covers the salient points in support of the allegations of her complaint.

Witness Wright testified that plaintiff and defendant rented a house from him in Nashville, where they lived about two years. He boarded with them, and they "seemed at first to get along first rate, but later on there got to be a good deal of nagging, a good deal of quarreling," and that continued as long as witness could stand it, and he told them they would have to move from his house, and the conduct of defendant was such as to arouse the sympathy of any one in behalf of plaintiff. "At times both plaintiff and defendant participated in the quarreling and nagging. Witness did not remember the language used by each toward the other. At times they used abusive and insulting language. The defendant objected to the plaintiff attending church so much. It sounded like quarreling to witness when they were nagging and quarreling. They just disputed with each other. He never heard any threats made during the time they lived in his house. He never saw the defendant do any work around the house. Mrs. Arnold and her baby were sick some while they lived in his house and defendant seemed to be attentive at the time they had the measles.

The sister of plaintiff testified that she had often seen the plaintiff and the defendant when they were fussing. At one time when she came upon them fussing plaintiff remarked that she didn't think she would put up with that condition always, and defendant spoke up and said, "I hope to God you won't; I wish you would leave; there are forty women in Nashville I could marry." She tells about her sister providing for the family and teaching music, keeping boarders and canvassing for the sale of dress goods. She heard the defendant refuse the request of the plaintiff to buy her clothing that she said she needed to wear to church. Defendant would say he couldn't get them for her; that he didn't have the money. If defendant ever made any effort to assist the plaintiff to get clothing so she could attend church witness never knew of it. "A good deal of the trouble between plaintiff and defendant has grown out of the fact that plaintiff wanted to carry the baby to church and defendant objected to it," and witness never knew any reason for it except he just didn't want her to go. She had heard the defendant object to plaintiff going to church a number of times. "He would object and wanted to go home and go to bed and then there would be a row."

Plaintiff's father testified to the fact that she had to work to support herself and family, and that he had raised her to attend church, and that she had always been accustomed to attend church during the time that she lived at his house before her marriage.

A brother of the plaintiff testified that he had heard quite a good many disturbances between his sister and the defendant that defendant "seemed not to stand back from getting into a row."

A witness by the name of Koonce testified that plaintiff and defendant rented a house from him in August, 1912, in which they lived about six months. Witness and his daughter, who was then about fourteen years old, boarded with the plaintiff and defendant while they were living in witness's house. During this time there was a good deal of disturbance and quarreling among them. A good deal of it was about the church. The defendant objected to the plaintiff and the little girl attending church. Whenever she would speak of going to prayer meeting or church he would begin to quarrel at her and it would continue until she would leave for church. These troubles were continuous between them. Witness slept in a room close to them at night and often heard them quarreling during the night, and it got worse during the time they lived in his house. Plaintiff worked regularly. In addition to doing her house work, she canvassed selling dress goods. If defendant ever worked any witness did not know it. During the time they lived in his house defendant would always, or generally, start the fuss between them. The quarrels were every Sunday and all the time between them. It was a quarrel every time the plaintiff said anything about going to church. Defendant sometimes wanted her to go to church with him and she would sometimes go. She belonged to the Baptist church and he to the Methodist church. The witness did not remember the language used during these quarrels, but he thought the language defendant used toward the plaintiff would hurt her feelings. The defendant was continuously nagging at the plaintiff about her religion--quoting Scripture in a sarcastic way. Defendant would oftentimes raise a row at meal times about the preparation of food.

The testimony of Miss Kate Koonce corroborated, substantially the testimony of her father. She testified, in addition, that she heard the defendant on one occasion make threats against the plaintiff, "threatening to take a club and fight it out about going to church. The rows they had would continue until late in the night and sometimes would be renewed the next morning." Witness could not use the language that they used toward each other. They were both quarreling, but the plaintiff didn't participate in it as much as the defendant. The plaintiff tried to avoid the quarrels. At the time she heard the defendant threaten to use a club on plaintiff it was about three days before plaintiff left him.

The plaintiff, on being recalled as a witness, stated that she had no love for the defendant and could not possibly care for a man that would treat her as defendant had. Among other things, she says: "He has often accused me of infidelity, for the last year or more especially. I went to the office of Doctor Dildy in company with the defendant. The doctor remarked that when I got better to come to his office later on, and when I got home I remarked I was glad I had some bills all paid. He (the defendant) became furious, and wanted to know if I had gone to the doctor's office. He said, 'Why didn't he say bring your wife instead of send your wife?' I told him I had not been to the office, but I suppose he didn't hear me; he just kept nagging and abusing the doctors of the town, walked out in the yard, chopped two or three licks, came back in the house and said, 'Well, the camel's back is broken, and that trip to the doctor's office is what did it;' and I said, 'Well, let it be broken; I don't care.' He said, 'You went to that doctor's office against my will, you go to Sunday school against my will.'"

She further testified: "He could not tell to save his neck when he accused me of...