Callahan v. Callahan
| Decision Date | 16 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 6561.,6561. |
| Citation | 192 S.W.2d 48 |
| Parties | CALLAHAN v. CALLAHAN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; William E. Barton, Judge.
Action by Jessie Callahan against Esther Callahan for divorce and custody of parties' minor children, wherein defendant filed a cross bill. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hugo L. Weismantel and Harry Gershenson, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Earl E. Roberts, of Steelville, and Haymes & Dickey, of Springfield, for respondent.
This is an action in which plaintiff seeks a divorce on the statutory ground of indignities and asks for the care and custody of their two minor children, Rosaline Callahan, age thirteen years and Kenney Roy Callahan, age ten years. The petition was filed about February 15, 1944, service was had and in due time defendant filed her answer and cross bill and asked that she be granted a divorce and the custody of the two children. Upon a hearing the court found the issues for plaintiff, granted him a divorce and the custody of the two children. Defendant duly appeals.
The evidence tends to show that plaintiff and defendant lived in Crawford County all their married life. The last two years prior to the separation they lived in the farm home of Julius L. Wedemeyer. Mr. Wedemeyer lived in St. Louis and was a member of the St. Louis police force and frequently visited the farm staying in the home of plaintiff and defendant. As a result of "secret" conversations between Wedemeyer and defendant, plaintiff became suspicious and asked defendant what they were talking about. She said she couldn't tell him. Sometime in 1943 Herman Cassidy, a brother-in-law of plaintiff, got in trouble in St. Louis and called Wedemeyer to help him out. Wedemeyer asked Mrs. Callahan, the defendant, to go to St. Louis in connection with this affair. Plaintiff objected to her going, saying she was not needed, but Wedemeyer sent after the defendant disregarding such protests. Defendant went to St. Louis and, instead of staying with her sister or other relatives who lived there, stayed in a private room. Defendant could not tell where the room was located and explained that her reason for occupying it was because Mr. Wedemeyer, being a policeman, didn't want anyone to know that he had any connection with the case and requested her to get a private room. Plaintiff was disturbed over the situation and wrote defendant stating that if she was not home at a certain time he would come after her. After a day or two defendant returned to her home in Crawford County. Later on defendant became ill and was under the care of a doctor. Finally, in the early part of 1944, plaintiff took her to St. Louis in an ambulance to a hospital. He visited her two or three times a week while she was there and after her recovery she refused to return to her home. She told plaintiff she didn't care anything for him, was not going to live with him and wanted him to set her free just as soon as possible; that she wouldn't give Wedemeyer's back yard for plaintiff's whole farm; that she was going to get a divorce; that her next home would be a five-room building and she was going to wait until she got it and she didn't think it would be but a very short time. Thereupon plaintiff returned to his home in Crawford County and filed suit for divorce.
The evidence further showed that the apparent intimacy between defendant and Wedemeyer became so notorious that it became common gossip in the community. One of defendant's witnesses stated: "I guess its been common talk in that community for the last two years about the actions of Mr. Wedemeyer; every neighbor you talk to about it said something about Wedemeyer and this lady." It was also shown that plaintiff is a man of good character, a hard worker and took good care of his family, both before and after the separation. The children were kept in school and attended Sunday school and Church; that plaintiff's home and home life were about the average in the community.
Before proceeding with the taking of the testimony plaintiff filed a motion for a continuance on account of the absence of James Britton and Della Britton, father and step-mother, respectively, of the defendant. Defendant, through her counsel, agreed to admit that if the witnesses mentioned in said affidavit were present they would testify as set forth therein. Whereupon the motion was overruled. The following statement from plaintiff's motion for a continuance was read into the evidence:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v. Dawson
... ... vs. Brookhouse, 286 Mich. 151, 281 N.W. 573 and cases ... cited; Stevens vs. Stevens (Mo. App.) 158 S.W.2d ... 238, 241; Callahan vs. Callahan, (Mo. App.), 192 ... S.W.2d 48; Black vs. Black (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 ... S.W.2d 476; Mortensen vs. Mortensen, (Tex. Civ ... App.), ... ...
-
Hachtel v. Hachtel
...for attorney fees, which motion was afterwards by the court overruled and no appeal taken therefrom. This court held in Callahan v. Callahan, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 48, 50, as 'Complaint is made as to the allowance of alimony. Where, as here, a divorce has been granted the husband and the wife......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...especially where there is irreconcilable conflict in the evidence, to defer largely to the finding of the trial judge. Callahan v. Callahan, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 48. * * This rule does not mean that the appellate court must blindly accept the findings of the trial court, but, where there is ......
-
Fite v. Fite
...conflict to defer largely to the conclusions of the trial judge. Glenn v. Glenn, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 629; White v. White, supra; Callahan v. Callahan, supra; Galst Galst, supra. A mother will be given custody of a child of tender years, if all else is equal, and especially a female child. A......