Clark v. Clark

• Decision Date: 16 May 1902
• Citation: 86 Minn. 249,90 N.W. 390
• Parties: CLARK v. CLARK.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

86 Minn. 249

90 N.W. 390

CLARK

v.CLARK.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 16, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Redwood county; B. L. Webber, Judge.

Action by Henrietta A. Clark against Albert E. Clark. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Gen. St. 1894, § 5769, providing that no divorce shall be granted on the sole confessions, admissions, or testimony of the parties, either in or out of court, was intended by the legislature to apply to divorce actions the general rule in respect to corroborating evidence.

2. The statute does not require, in such actions, that the complaining party be corroborated as to each item of testimony given in support of the complaint. It is sufficient if the corroborating evidence tends in some degree to support and confirm the allegations relied upon for divorce.¹ Bowers & Howard, for appellant.

A. C. Dolliff, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Defendant had judgment in the court below, and plaintiff appealed.

The cruel and inhuman treatment mainly relied upon by the plaintiff at the trial consisted in alleged false and malicious accusations by defendant to the effect that she had been guilty of adultery with different persons, whose names were given. She testified that defendant had, during a period covering many years, frequently charged and accused her of adulterous intercourse with various men, and that such charges were false and untrue, and without any foundation whatever. Defendant denied having made any of the charges, save one, which he admitted; and, as to this, plaintiff was expressly corroborated by the person to whom the charge was made by defendant. Another witness, called on behalf of plaintiff, testified that defendant said to him a short time prior to the commencement of the action that plaintiff was a traitor to him (defendant), and that, if he should tell all he knew, it would make him (the witness) open his eyes. This witness was the son-in-law of the parties. There was other evidence by plaintiff tending to show ill treatment at the hands of defendant, but, in the view we take of the case, such evidence is of no special importance. The important question in the case is whether plaintiff was sufficiently corroborated in respect to the alleged charges of adultery. The court below found that the allegations of the complaint were false and untrue, and, as we gather from the record, the finding was based upon the absence of corroborating evidence. The findings are quite broad and sweeping, and we are impressed with the view that too strict a construction was given to section 5769, Gen. St. 1894. The court was evidently of the opinion that this statute requires the complaining party in a divorce case to be expressly corroborated as to every item of evidence relied upon as a cause of action. In this we think the court was in error. The statute referred to provides that ‘no divorce shall be granted on the sole confessions, admissions or testimony of the parties, either in or out of court.’ The object and purpose of the statute was to require, in divorce cases, the evidence of the complaining party to be corroborated by independent testimony, and to forbid divorces unless some evidence be produced to that end. It was not the intention of the legislature to create a rule on this subject different from that applicable to corroborating evidence generally, but the manifest purpose was to apply the general rule. Though the basis of society throughout the civilized world is the marriage relation, and a faithful adherence to that relation when once entered into is essential to its protection, and though a system of laws that would permit of its dissolution at the whim or mere willingness of the parties would be inimical to the public good, yet the law recognizes that the comfort and happiness of individuals requires its services in special cases, and divorces are provided for. The parties are made competent witnesses, and the general rules and principles of law applicable to the admissibility and the weight and credit to be given testimony apply in such cases, and their truthfulness and the weight...