Bonanno v. Decedue
| Decision Date | 29 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | 34215 |
| Citation | 186 La. 1041,173 So. 756 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | BONANNO v. DECEDUE |
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Hugh C. Cage Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Thelma Bonanno against Samuel P. Decedue. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment annulled and reversed, and judgment for plaintiff ordered.
B. M Goodman, of New Orleans, for appellant.
This is a suit for divorce instituted by the wife against her husband on the ground of adultery, alleged to have been committed on July 8, 1936. The defendant was served personally with citation and a copy of the petition, but he failed to appear. A preliminary default was timely entered, and, after hearing testimony of plaintiff and two witnesses in support of her allegations, the trial judge refused to confirm the default and dismissed plaintiff's suit. She has appealed.
The record shows that there was never any issue born of the marriage and no property was acquired during the community. Two young men, who were old friends of the plaintiff's family (one of whom had been calling on plaintiff's sister for several years), and who were acquainted with the defendant, testified that they went to the place where the defendant operated a race-horse book; that at his invitation they went to a show and afterwards to an immoral house on 1334 Marais street; and that defendant went into the place and remained a half-hour, while they remained outside. It also appears that the couple was not happily married, and it was only after the witnesses were apprised of the domestic difficulties and were appealed to by the plaintiff that they told what they knew.
The trial judge, however, was of the opinion that a witness who reveals the infidelity of a friend is unworthy of belief, and refused to grant the divorce. If this rule were followed by courts, there would be very few instances where a divorce could be granted on the ground of adultery. While evidence ofthis character is often viewed with suspicion and should always be considered with great caution, there is nothing incredible about the testimony of the two witnesses. Although the trial judge questioned one of the witnesses, he failed to extract anything of an inconsistent or contradictory nature in the testimony. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in the record to indicate that the testimony was false or unreliable, and as the husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopes v. Domtar Industries
...Olds v. Ashley, 250 La. 935, 200 So.2d 1 (1967); Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 238 La. 1048, 117 So.2d 587 (1960); Bonanno v. Decedue, 186 La. 1041, 173 So. 756 (1937). (In each of these instances, the trial court's finding of fact was reversed due to its failure to observe this principle......
-
Turner v. Southern Industries Co., 4215
...So. 73, particularly in the absence of any evidence in the record to indicate that the evidence was false or unreliable. Bonanno v. Decedue, 186 La. 1041, 173 So. 756.' Cockrell v. Penrod Drilling Co., 214 La. 951, 39 So.2d 429, at pages 432-433. 'Uncontradicted testimony should be accepted......
-
Olds v. Ashley
... ... 944] be accepted as true. Miller v. Hartford Live Stock Insurance Co. Inc., 165 La. 777, 116 So. 182; Bonanno v. Decedue, 186 La. 1041, 173 So. 756; Cockrell v. Penrod Drilling Company, 214 La. 951, 39 So.2d 429; Coleman v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance ... ...
-
Tate v. Gullett Gin Co.
...So. 73, particularly in the absence of any evidence in the record to indicate that the evidence was false or unreliable. Bonanno v. Decedue, 186 La. 1041, 173 So. 756,' Cockrell v. Penrod Drilling Co., 214 La. 951, 39 So.2d 429, 432-433. Further, the District Court did not reject this testi......