Crow v. Crow
| Citation | 29 Or. 392,45 P. 761 |
| Parties | CROW v. CROW. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1896 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Linn county; George H. Burnett, Judge.
Action for divorce by Bettie C. Crow against Lemuel J. Crow. Judgment dismissing complaint, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
N.M Newport, for appellant.
This is a suit for divorce, brought by the wife on the ground of personal indignities rendering her life burdensome. The issues being joined, the prosecuting attorney upon the failure of the defendant, appeared for the state whereupon the plaintiff introduced her evidence, from which the court found all the material facts in her favor, except that she offered no testimony tending to show that her life had been or was rendered burdensome by any conduct of the defendant, and dismissed the suit from which decree the plaintiff appeals. The only question presented for consideration is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a more favorable finding than that of which the plaintiff complains. The record conclusively shows that the defendant, in the presence and hearing of another falsely charged the plaintiff with the commission of the crime of adultery with a person whom he named, and, upon her denial of the accusation, called her a liar, and other opprobrious names and epithets; telling her she was not a reputable person, and ought to live in a house of ill fame where she could be among her equals. Thereupon she informed the defendant that she could not live with any one who would falsely accuse her of the commission of such a crime, and immediately deserted him. The plaintiff, as a witness in her own behalf, testifies that these accusations were false, and made for the purpose of vexing and annoying her, and that they did annoy her very much, and, on cross-examination, says they made her miserable. The evidence does not show the degree or extent of the misery suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's malicious and false charge, but this may be inferred from her conduct, and the other facts and circumstances of the case. It has been repeatedly held in this state that, if either party to the marriage contract falsely charge the other with the commission of the crime of adultery, such false accusation is a sufficient cause for a divorce. Smith v. Smith, 8 Or. 100; McMahan v McMahan, 9 Or. 525; Eggerth v. Eggerth, 15 Or. 626, 16 P. 650; Herberger v. Herberger, 16 Or. 327, 14 P....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Williams
...v. Graft, 76 Ind. 136;Haight v. Haight (Iowa) 82 N. W. 443;Goodman v. Goodman, 26 Mich. 417;Cook v. Cook, 11 N. J. Eq. 195;Crow v. Crow, 29 Or. 392, 45 Pac. 761, and cases cited; Kelly v. Kelly, 18 Nev. 49, 1 Pac. 194,15 Am. Rep. 732;Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 460;Bahn v. Bahn, 62 Tex. 518, 50......
-
McCallister v. McCallister
... ... McMahan, 9 Or. 525; Eggerth ... v Eggerth, 15 Or. 626, 16 P. 650; Herberger v ... Herberger, 16 Or. 327, 14 P. 70; Crow v. Crow, ... 29 Or. 392, 45 P. 761. See also, Reinhard v ... Reinhard, 96 Wis. 555, 71 N.W. 803, 65 Am. St. Rep. 80, ... and ... ...
-
Bartlett v. Bartlett
...as of importance. See, e. g., Barnes v. Barnes, supra; Oxley v. Oxley, 191 Pa. St. 474; Haight v. Haight, 82 N. W. (Ia.) 443; Crow v. Crow, 29 Or. 392. Moreover, the Judge seems to have referred to this fact chiefly as bearing on the question whether the charge had been made, for he proceed......
-
Bartlett v. Bartlett
...as of importance. See, e. g., Barnes v. Barnes, supra; Oxley v. Oxley, 191 Pa. St. 474; Haight v. Haight, 82 N.W. (Ia.) 443; Crow v. Crow, 29 Or. 392. Moreover, the Judge seems to have referred to this fact chiefly as bearing on the question whether the charge had been made, for he proceede......