Bordes v. Bordes

• Decision Date: 18 February 1938
• Citation: 272 Ky. 183,113 S.W.2d 1122
• Parties: BORDES v. BORDES.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

113 S.W.2d 1122

272 Ky. 183

BORDES v. BORDES.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

February 18, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rockcastle County.

Divorce proceedings by Rosella Frith Bordes against John Burgin Bordes. From a decree granting absolute divorce and $25 monthly alimony, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Williams & Denney, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Robert B. Bird, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

The parties to this action at the time it was filed in the Rockcastle circuit court on August 6, 1936, were husband and wife; the appellant and defendant below being the husband and the appellee and plaintiff below the wife. She filed the petition against her husband seeking a divorce from their bonds of matrimony, and alimony for her support, upon the ground that defendant had failed to provide for her or furnish to her a home in which to live, or to contribute any substantial sum to her support; and that he "had behaved toward her in such a cruel manner as to indicate a settled aversion to her and to destroy permanently her peace and happiness." His answer was a denial of the averments of the petition, and upon final submission the court granted its prayer and decreed an absolute divorce to plaintiff and allowed her as against her husband the sum of $25 per month as alimony. To reverse the alimony judgment defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The parties were married at Erlanger, Ky. on January 22, 1935. At that time plaintiff was about 20 years of age, while defendant was some older. He then and continuously thereafter held the place of state patrolman on a salary at the time of his marriage of $75 per month but which was later increased to $100 per month. They had no children and defendant has no dependents, or, if any, the fact is not manifested by this record. Plaintiff has no property whatever, except her clothing and some other small personal belongings, nor does she have any means of support other than through her own efforts. The first month or two after their marriage they lived with plaintiff's brother in a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio. From thence they moved to Brodhead, Ky. to the home of plaintiff's parents. After a month or so they moved to Lexington, Ky. and remained there about the same length of time, and then returned to plaintiff's parents for a short while, and then moved in the home of defendant's brother at Crab Orchard, Ky.

So that, during his married life at no time did defendant provide plaintiff with a home over which she might preside and which she could direct and manage. During all of their married life defendant was away from the temporary abode of the couple a large part of the time on the pretense of discharging his duties as state patrolman. But the evidence shows that on occasions he was not engaged in any such duties during his absence, and that he devoted part of his time entertaining other ladies, but which conduct on his part was not constant, according to the record. At any rate, the wife became aware of it, but she does not seem to have become enraged, nor does the proof show that she even upbraided her husband for doing so. Also, soon after their marriage defendant exhibited the habit of drinking, which was very displeasing to plaintiff, and it, with perhaps the knowledge of his disposition to associate with other women, would cause her to weep, but it does not appear to have aroused anger on her part.

Defendant was more or less parsimonious in his furnishing either money or clothing to his wife, and when he was away supposedly attending to his official duties (which was more than half the time) she would be alone, except for the company of the people with whom she was residing. Of course, she grew more or less lonely in that situation. Therefore, inasmuch as her husband was away the larger part of the time, she concluded to attend the State Normal School in Richmond, Ky. for the double purpose of finishing her education, and to better equip herself for teaching school whereby she could increase the small income of the couple. Her husband objected to her entering school, but she insisted that, since he was away most of the time--and inasmuch as Richmond was in the same general vicinity where they had theretofore resided--it would be as convenient and possibly as economical for her to remain at Richmond and attend school as it would be for her to continue to reside with members of his and her family as they had theretofore done. Consequently she entered the school at the beginning of its fall term in 1935. The tuition was small, as was also the amount of her board, which was at first in a dormitory, but later she procured a room in a residence in the city of Richmond where her husband could visit her more conveniently, as she thought. He did visit her occasionally at first, but they became more infrequent and finally practically ceased.

The funds for plaintiff's original entrance into the school were furnished by her brother; however, defendant claims to have advanced his wife small amounts, but for only a few times, amounting in the aggregate to only a fractional part of her necessary expenses. Plaintiff also testified that following the marriage--and before and possibly after she entered school--defendant would talk on occasions harshly and at one time tried to strike her with a pistol, but which she in some manner warded off. The evidence uncontradictedly shows that plaintiff was of a mild disposition, tolerant towards her husband, and with an ambition for both him and...