Caldwell v. Caldwell
| Decision Date | 11 February 1909 |
| Citation | 141 Iowa 192,119 N.W. 599 |
| Parties | CALDWELL v. CALDWELL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; D. M. Anderson, Judge.
Suit for divorce resulted in a decree as prayed and awarding the custody of a minor child one-half of the time to each party, alternating every six months. Both parties appeal; that of plaintiff being first perfected. Reversed on plaintiff's appeal and affirmed on defendant's appeal.Steck, Daugherty & Steck, for appellant.
Cornell & Gillies, for appellee.
The parties hereto were married May 21, 1898; she being 18 and he 29 years of age. Their only child, Willie, was born May 5, 1902. The husband left for Arkansas with the assurance that he was done with her and would live with her no longer October 12, 1906. She now makes her home with her mother and two sisters in Ottumwa. He has a room and boards in Tucumcari, N. M. In the morning of the second day previous to his departure, he knocked his wife down with his fist, jammed her head against the refrigerator, choked her, and in violence undertook to drag her from the room, and when she screamed his only response was that if she did so again he would choke the life out of her. She sent the little boy for help twice, but none came. He finally desisted, but not until nearly tearing her clothes from her person. She was so frightened and nervous as not to recover for several weeks, and all this was over getting Willie's shoes from the next house, where they had been left the night before. True, defendant attempted to belittle this affair by denying that he struck or choked her, but he did admit that he took her by the arms and pushed her, that she was on the floor, and that her clothes were badly torn. The fingermarks on her neck and bruises on her person, as well as his statement to her mother in presence of a sister that he had knocked her down and the wonder was he did not do worse, amply corroborated and confirmed her story. Added to this should be her testimony that he had laid violent hands on her several times before, was in the habit of cursing her, and, against her entreaties, had absented himself four weeks before and until three weeks after the birth of the child. Again he denied having struck her and explained that he was absent earning money at the time of her confinement with her consent.
Enough has been said to indicate that the finding of the trial court that defendant has been guilty of treatment so cruel and inhuman and involving such danger to plaintiff's life as to justify the decree of divorce is supported by the record, unless he shall be excused because of provocation by her. It appears that about a year and a half prior to the separation they attended an entertainment given by the trainmen, where she undertook to dance a quadrille. She had never danced before and when with him at another like entertainment sought his consent to learn. It was given with the understanding that, when able to dance, she might attend. She learned, and, as her husband was away on the road as brakeman most of the time, she accompanied Dr. and Mrs. Miller, Mr. and Mrs. Kaufman, or Mrs. Minton to and from the several dances. The propriety of her conduct is not questioned, save that she went too often. Possibly she attended more frequently than was wise, sometimes oftener than once a week, and undoubtedly her husband remonstrated with her toward the...
To continue reading
Request your trial