Belt v. Belt
Decision Date | 06 July 1926 |
Citation | 288 S.W. 100,224 Mo.App. 780 |
Parties | MARY ELIZABETH BELT, RESPONDENT, v. ALEX T. BELT ET AL., APPELLANTS |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll County.--Hon. Ralph Hughes Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Lawson & Hale, Sam Withers, S. J. and G. C. Jones for appellants.
John T Morris and Guy Whiteman for respondent.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
Actual and punitive damages are asked in the sum of $ 15,000 and $ 10,000, respectively.
The reply was a general denial of the matters contained in the separate answers of the defendants. During the progress of the trial plaintiff dismissed her suit as to defendant Eldred Houston and the cause proceeded to judgment against the remaining defendants. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff against Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt in the sum of $ 6000 actual damages. Motions for a new trial and in arrest were unavailing and defendants appeal.
The record shows that James C. Belt is the son and only child of defendants Alex T. and Dora Belt, husband and wife; that plaintiff, whose maiden name was Mary Elizabeth Liller, and James C. Belt were married on November 6, 1915, and from that date until January 28, 1924, they lived together as husband and wife; that on said last named date there was a separation, plaintiff remaining in the house which had been occupied by herself and husband for some years immediately preceding the separation. During the first few months of their married life plaintiff and her husband lived at the home of Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt. Later, for some two or three years, they lived in rented houses, until they purchased a home of their own where they lived until the final separation and where plaintiff still resides.
The facts show that on Christmas Day, 1922, a family dinner was given at the home of Alex T. Belt and that plaintiff and her husband, Mary Van Landingham, Catherine Cunningham and her son F. S. Cunningham, were guests. Mrs. Van Landingham and Mrs. Cunningham were sisters of defendant Dora Belt and Mrs. Cunningham lived at Liberty, Missouri. As soon as plaintiff and her husband arrived at the home of the elder Belts, James C. Belt was given intoxicating liquor; that the drinking was repeated until James C. Belt and his father became drunk; that when seated at the table, Alex T. Belt, because of his intoxication, was unable to carve the turkey and asked James C. to perform that function; but being intoxicated, he was unable to carve the fowl satisfactorily; that the face of James C. Belt was flushed and his remarks and condition were those of a man excessively drunk. Plaintiff was so grieved and shocked at the condition of her husband, brought about by the acts of his parents in giving him intoxicants, that she could not eat her dinner but left the table and repaired to the living room where she remained until the meal was over, when her husband came into the room and reclined upon a couch; that plaintiff said to her husband, "O, Jim, how could you have forgotten yourself so?" and that he replied, "O, honey, I didn't mean to do it." Plaintiff then said to him, "I know they ought not to have given it to you." At this juncture defendant Dora Belt came into the room in a state of anger and said to plaintiff: This was said in the presence of plaintiff's husband and defendant Alex T. Belt. Thereupon Mrs. Cunningham and Mrs. Van Landingham came into the room and in their presence and in the presence of James C. and his father, the defendant Dora Belt further said:
Dora Belt also said at that time that she had been in plaintiff's home (prior to her marriage to James C. Belt) and that plaintiff had a very poor home; that plaintiff had never been accustomed to anything in her home and that what plaintiff now had she (Dora Belt) had given her; that Dora Belt then turned to plaintiff's husband and said, She said plaintiff had offended them terribly and would not try to be one of them.
There was testimony in plaintiff's behalf, in this connection, tending to show that defendant Dora Belt felt, and so expressed herself that her son in marrying plaintiff had married beneath his station. That plaintiff replied to this tirade by saying:
Further, it appears that Dora Belt said in the presence of the others that plaintiff was just of a high temper and quarrelsome nature and nothing pleased her; that Jim was not drunk and that they were not drunk and hadn't been drinking. Plaintiff denied this and said to her mother-in-law:
Thereupon Dora Belt said: "I don't care what you do; you can go if you want to."
It appears in plaintiff's account of the affair that at this juncture defendant Alex T. Belt, because of his intoxication, was hors de combat that he began to cry and was escorted to bed where he became quieter and went to sleep. After Alex T. Belt had been thus disposed of, plaintiff said to her husband:
"Let's don't talk any more about it, I'm all alone . . . Jim, I'm all alone in this, and let's don't have any more trouble about it." and his reply was "all right." Then Jim turned to his mother and said:
To this, his mother replied:
Later in the evening Alex T. Belt was taken for an automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Purcell v. Journeymen Barbers and Beauticians International Union of America, Local 192-A
... ... Journeymen Barbers Int. Union, 194 Iowa 1179, 191 N.W ... 111; Browning v. Browning, 226 Mo.App. 322, 41 ... S.W.2d 860, l. c. 868; Belt v. Belt, 224 Mo.App ... 780, 288 S.W. 100, l. c. 107; Kennish v. Safford, ... 193 Mo.App. 362, 184 S.W. 923, l. c. 926; Allen v ... ...
- Jegglin v. Orr