Bethel v. Bethel

• Citation: 164 S.W. 682,181 Mo. App. 601
• Parties: BETHEL v. BETHEL.
• Decision Date: 03 March 1914
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

164 S.W. 682

181 Mo. App. 601

BETHEL v. BETHEL.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 3, 1914.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1914.

1. DIVORCE (§ 55)—RECRIMINATION.

In a suit by a wife for divorce because of indignities rendering her life intolerable, and of cruel and inhuman treatment by her husband, evidence showing mutual altercations between the parties, extending over a considerable time, and aggression and desertion by the wife, held sufficient to warrant the dismissal of her complaint.

2. DIVORCE (§ 43)—FALSE CHARGES AGAINST WIFE.

A wife may be denied a divorce on the ground of unfounded and untrue charges of infidelity concerning her, made by her husband, where the husband, at the time of making the charges, was a nervous wreck, and his mental condition was such as to render him unaccountable for his words and actions; such condition being tantamount to insanity, and violence from an insane husband not being legal cruelty.

3. DIVORCE (§ 108)—PLEADING—DEFENSES.

Where a husband has made unfounded and untrue charges of infidelity against the wife, that he was a nervous wreck and not accountable for his words and actions when the charges were made is a sufficient reason for denying a divorce to the wife, though such defense was not pleaded.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; James D. Barnett, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Mary Effie Bethel against John J. Bethel. From a judgment dismissing her complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Clarence A. Barnes, of Mexico, Mo., for appellant. E. S. Gantt, of Mexico, Mo., for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This suit proceeds at the instance of the wife, plaintiff, for divorce. Besides entering a general denial to the averments of the petition, the defendant husband filed a cross-bill, and prayed that the divorce be granted to him. After hearing the evidence and arguments, the court found the issue for defendant, dismissed plaintiff's petition, and dismissed, as well, defendant's cross-bill. From this judgment dismissing her petition, plaintiff alone appeals.

It appears the parties were married in 1883, and had lived together as husband and wife for about 28 years. Seven children were born of the marriage, and six of them still live. Both plaintiff and defendant appear to be hard-working people, but in moderate circumstances only. During all of the years of their married life they lived on different rented farms. Plaintiff is a large, robust and forceful woman, while defendant appears to be a small and emaciated person and rather timid. The evidence tends to prove the parties got along well enough together until some seven or eight years ago, when dissensions arose between them, and it does not appear that the defendant was entirely at fault. The record abounds with evidence to the effect that the wife mistreated the husband, and it abounds with evidence, too, tending to prove that he possessed considerable temper, was quarrelsome, and mistreated his wife at times. It appears defendant has been suffering with poor health for some six or eight years, and that he is exceedingly nervous. Besides being small of stature and emaciated, defendant is very deaf. This affliction came upon him in early life, and has gradually increased during all of the years. Plaintiff charges that defendant was guilty of such indignities toward her as to render her condition in life intolerable, and also cruel and inhuman treatment of her on his part. The evidence for plaintiff tends to prove that defendant frequently became enraged and threatened to beat her. On several occasions he took a shotgun and kept it with him in his room, threatening to shoot plaintiff, etc. It is said defendant would curse plaintiff at times, refuse to let her drive his horses and go to church, saying she was "running after" the preacher. Plaintiff says, too, her husband struck her several times with his fist in the mouth and nose, and otherwise mistreated her. On the part of defendant it is denied that he made these assaults upon plaintiff, and his evidence tends to prove that she assaulted and beat him upon numerous occasions. The evidence amply reveals that plaintiff is the stronger person physically and the more forceful character of the two. She admits having taken a poker away from defendant on the occasion of one quarrel, and it is quite apparent that she was at least equal in point of physical strength to her husband, and, no doubt, amply able to care for herself in the ordinary combat which seems frequently to have occurred. One of defendant's witnesses, a hired hand who had lived in the family for some time, says he saw plaintiff slap her husband's "jaws" on several occasions, and one time she hit him on the head with a stick of wood. A neighbor, who lived about 40 yards distant, testified that on several occasions he heard defendant calling for him to come to the rescue, as he was being "beaten up" by his wife. This witness and others, too, testified to seeing defendant with a black eye, a bruised face, and bruises about his arms immediately after such mêlées had taken place, and that defendant had stated to them he received such injuries at the hands of the plaintiff, his wife. The evidence altogether suggests with great force that plaintiff, and, indeed, her elder children, had become tired of defendant as a member of the household, and was anxious that he should leave. There is evidence, too, and the attendant facts and circumstances seem to corroborate it, tending to prove that plaintiff finally rented the farm on which they lived in her own name, and told defendant to leave. At any rate, he left on the 1st day of March, the commencement of the new term of lease, and it is quite clear that plaintiff had arranged the matter of renting the farm a few days before. Plaintiff says that defendant left the home on his own account, while he says she ordered him to do so, and, as before said, other facts and circumstances in the record tend to corroborate defendant's theory with respect of this matter. Upon leaving, defendant went to the home of his married daughter, and, shortly, she or her husband notified him to leave there, which he did.

There can be no doubt...