Fagan v. Fagan.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JENNINGS, Judge.
• Citation: Fagan v. Fagan., 131 Conn. 688, 42 A.2d 41 (Conn. 1945)
• Decision Date: 15 March 1945
• Parties: FAGAN v. FAGAN.

131 Conn. 688

42 A.2d 41

FAGAN

v.FAGAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 15, 1945.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; McEvoy, O'Sullivan, and Shea, Judges.

Action for divorce by Irene R. Fagan against J. George Fagan, wherein the defendant filed a cross-complaint. The issues were tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant on the complaint and cross-complaint granting him a divorce and custody of a minor child, and, from the judgment and from certain subsequent rulings of the court, the plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Jacob Schwolsky and John W. Joy, both of Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Joseph P. Cooney, of Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment for the defendant on his cross-complaint. The latter was divorced from the plaintiff on the grounds of intolerable cruelty and habitual intemperance. The plaintiff's appeal from the judgment for the defendant on her complaint was abandoned.

A detailed rehearsal of the marital difficulties of these parties would serve no useful purpose. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff was both intolerably cruel and habitually intemperate to the point that the public and personal objects of matrimony have been destroyed beyond rehabilitation, and that the custody of the minor child of the marriage should be awarded to the defendant. The terms habitual intemperance and intolerable cruelty are not subject to exact definition. Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 192, 36 A. 34, 34 L.R.A. 449, 57 Am.St.Rep. 95. Suffice to say that the subordinate facts fully support these conclusions. The assignments of error attack many of these subordinate facts and ask that others be added, but only one finding material to the plaintiff's appeal is specifically mentioned in her brief and there was ample evidence to support it. The few other paragraphs referred to were either immaterial to the issue or mentioned because of the plaintiff's claim that they were favorable to her.

The real claim of the plaintiff is that the trial court believed the defendant rather than the plaintiff and her witnesses. This is no ground of appeal in this state, Scibek v. O'Connell, 131 Conn. 557, 560, 41 A.2d 251; even when, as here, the defendant's own testimony lacked corroboration except in one or two particulars. See Frisbie v. Schinto, 120 Conn. 412, 413, 181 A. 535; State v. Carey, 76 Conn. 342, 345, 56 A. 632. The record shows that the assignments of error directed to the finding were very carefully considered by the trial judge, who filed a supplemental memorandum analyzing them and referring to the particular pages of the record supporting the findings attacked. It is of some significance that the plaintiff cites only one Connecticut case in support of her claim in which the judgment of the trial court was reversed on appeal. In Sweet v. Sweet, 97 Conn. 693, 118 A. 36, this action was taken but it was on the ground...