Bond v. Bond, 11033
Decision Date | 02 June 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 11033,11033 |
Citation | 109 S.E.2d 16,144 W.Va. 478 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Marjorie M. BOND v. William J. B. BOND, Jr. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a situation involving constitutional rights of religious freedom, the law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma.
2. Where, in a divorce suit, a decree grants a divorce to the wife, who is a Jehovah's Witness; awards to her the custody of minor children born to the marriage union; gives to her the right to occupy the dwelling owned jointly by the parties and to use the contents thereof as a home for the divorced wife and minor children; and requires the husband to pay stipulated monthly sums for their support and maintenance; in a subsequent proceeding to modify such divorce decree a decretal provision 'that she [the divorced wife] is hereby enjoined, restrained and prohibited from holding, or permitting others to hold meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses in the home' is void and unenforceable because it places an unconstitutional restraint upon the wife in the exercise of religious freedom as guaranteed to her by Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution of West Virginia.
3. In a suit for divorce, the trial chancellor is vested with a wide discretion in determining the amount of alimony, the amount of support of minor children and in determining awards to the wife of suit money, court costs and counsel fees; and the trial chancellor's determination of such matters will not be disturbed upon appeal to this Court unless it clearly appears that he has abused his discretion.
Horace S. Meldahl, Charleston, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
This case is before this Court upon appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cabell County, refusing to grant an appeal from the domestic relations court of that county.
In a suit for divorce, instituted in the domestic relations court, Marjorie M. Bond, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff', was granted a divorce on June 18, 1957, from William J. B. Bond, Jr., her husband, herein referred to as the 'defendant'. By the divorce decree, the plaintiff was granted custody of the three infant children born to the marriage union 'with the right and privilege reserved to defendant to visit and see said children, at reasonable times, and so long as defendant conducts himself in a proper and decorous manner upon such visitations'. The decree also gave the plaintiff the right to occupy, with the infant children, the home owned jointly by the parties and to use the contents thereof. The decree further required the defendant to pay monthly to his wife the sum of $25 as alimony, and a like sum for the support of each child, aggregating the monthly sum of $100. In addition, the decree required the defendant to continue to pay the monthly payments of $46.10 in reduction of a lien indebtedness on the residence property.
On August 14, 1957, the defendant gave notice to the plaintiff that, on August 19, 1957, he would apply to the domestic relations court for a modification of the provisions of the divorce decree. His petition filed in pursuance of the notice prayed: 'That the use of the dwelling house by the plaintiff be limited to serving as a home for she and said infant children and not as a meeting place for the Jehovah's Witnesses; that the petitioner be allowed to see and be with said infant children during a definite space of time each week; that the payment of the alimony, provided in said former decree, be curtailed so long as the plaintiff is employed, * * *'. To this petition plaintiff filed her answer praying
On August 26, 1957, a hearing was had before the court on the petition and answer thereto. In support of his petition the defendant expressed a desire that the court fix a definite formula for his visits with his three children. Specifically, he requested that he be given the privilege of having the children each Saturday evening from six o'clock to nine o'clock. Thereafter questions were propounded to the witness and he gave answers as follows:
'Q. Are you asking the Court to restrict the use of this dwelling house for residential purposes only? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Now, on what basis are you making that request, will you tell the Court? A. On the basis that they are using the home as a meeting place and a place of worship for a religious organization by the name of Jehovah's Witnesses.
'Q. Are these regular meetings for the whole Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, I should say, or what? A. Yes, sir, they are welcome as I understand, but they are also gathering women from the neighborhood to come in in the afternoon and have meetings.
'Q. And because of this you are asking the Court to restrict--not to restrict the use but that the use of the dwelling house be used for residential purposes only? A. Yes, sir.
On cross-examination questions were asked and the witness gave answers as follows:
Thereupon, counsel for the husband interposed an objection as follows:
The cross-examination of defendant was quite lengthy, dealing almost entirely with the tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses. At the conclusion thereof the defendant rested his case. The plaintiff then testified in support of her answer, followed by Billy Bond, age nine, the son of the parties hereto. Ten additional witnesses testified in behalf of plaintiff all affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses. The entire testimony in behalf of plaintiff was in the main given as an explanation or justification of the tenets, beliefs and religious practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. It would serve no good purpose to relate such testimony in detail. From the entire record, however, it is obvious that the defendant is quite impatient with many of such tenets, beliefs and religious practices, and that he does not want the three infant children to be subject to the influence thereof. It is at this point that the unfortunate battle line is formed.
Marjorie M. Bond testified as follows concerning the use of her home for religious services:
'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quiner v. Quiner
...134 (1964); Smith v. Smith, 90 Ariz. 190, 367 P.2d 230 (1961); Frantzen v. Frantzen, 349 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); Bond v. Bond, 144 W.Va. 478, 109 S.E.2d 16 (1959); Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705 (1957); Salvaggio v. Barnett, 248 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Civ.App.1952); Stone v. S......
- Ferrell v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Charleston, W. Va.
-
State ex rel. Hughes v. Board of Ed. of Kanawha County
...Amendment. Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711; Bond v. Bond, 144 W.Va. 478, 492, 109 S.E.2d 16, 23. Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution of West Virginia contains the following provision: 'No man shall be compelled to fr......
-
Daily Gazette Co. v. DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
...appeal to this Court unless it clearly appears that [it] has abused [its] discretion.' Syllabus point 3, [in part,] Bond v. Bond, 144 W.Va. 478, 109 S.E.2d 16 (1959)." Syl. Pt. 2, [in part,] Cummings v. Cummings, 170 W.Va. 712, 296 S.E.2d 542 (1982) [ (per curiam) Syl. pt. 4, in part, Ball ......