Ford v. Ford
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 397,200 Va. 674 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 4889,4889 |
| Parties | HARRIET VIRGINIA BURTON FORD v. JOHN RALPH FORD. Record |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
George E. Allen and Charles E. A. Knight, for the appellant.
Valentine W. Southall and J. Segar Gravatt, for the appellee.
JUDGE: I'ANSON
This suit was instituted by John Ralph Ford, the appellee, upon a bill of complaint filed March 17, 1953, praying for a divorce a mensa et thoro, to be later merged into a decree a vinculo matrimonii, from Harriet Virginia Burton Ford, the appellant, upon the ground of cruelty, culminating in constructive desertion on or about the 15th day of January, 1953. A plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court was overruled, and the appellant then filed an answer and cross-bill, charging the appellee with cruelty and desertion on February 12, 1953, and prayed for a divorce with alimony.
After the taking of considerable testimony, some heard ore tenus and the rest by depositions, the matter was submitted to the chancellor who rendered a written opinion and entered a final decree on November 12, 1957, awarding the appellee a divorce a vinculo matrimonii upon the ground 'that over a year ago the said Harriet Virginia Burton Ford, without lawful excuse, constructively deserted and abandoned the said John Ralph Ford.' To this decree we granted an appeal.
The appellant's assignments of error may be summarized as follows: (1) That the evidence did not support the court's finding that the appellant constructively deserted the appellee, and (2) that the court erred in its finding of fact that the appellant was not insane at the time of the alleged constructive desertion.
The principal question involved is: Was the appellant, Harriet Virginia Burton Ford, sane at the time of the alleged constructive wilful desertion?
If she was insane, she could not have been guilty of constructive wilful desertion. If she was sane, the evidence amply supports the finding of the chancellor.
The parties, who will be referred to as Ralph and Virginia, had known each other for a number of years and were married in September 1945 after a long courtship. Both were over thirty years of age at the time.
After their marriage they went to live at 'Holly Hill Farm' in Amelia County where Ralph, prior to his marriage, had lived with his father and a younger sister. Ralph and Virginia occupied the upstairs portion of the home. His father had conveyed the farm of 412 acres to Ralph, reserving for himself the timber and a life estate in the property. Under this arrangement the father and son operated the farm as joint partners.
Virginia was received into the family with kindness and affection and was well treated. From the beginning she did not adjust herself to her husband's family. Shortly after the marriage she began to make the most insulting and degrading accusations against her husband, accusing him of having sexual relations with her own mother and his younger sister.
They later moved to a small cottage on the farm which was approximately 150 yards from his father's home.
In order to keep peace Ralph was forced to cut off all social contact with his brother who lived on a nearby farm. She denied him the privilege of visiting his younger sister after her marriage and objected to visits to the home of his father. None of the members of his family was welcome in their home.
In July 1947 Virginia became ill and was operated upon in a Richmond hospital. When she left the hospital she went to the home of her parents in Chesterfield County. In six weeks she was sent back to the hospital because of extreme nervousness. Upon her discharge from the hospital she again went to her parents' home where she remained for approximately a year. Ralph syayed at her parents' home with her, driving back and forth each day to his work on the farm.
In 1948 Ralph remodeled the cottage on his farm and Virginia moved back there with him. It was not long before Virginia again began making insulting remarks to Ralph and calling him vile names. She would often awaken him in the middle of the night by shining a light in his eyes, or turning the radio on loud. She also accused him of having sexual relations with his step-mother, Mrs. Lavinia Ford, and others, all of which he denied. His health was greatly impaired by her harassment of him.
Virginia was resentful of Mrs. Lavinia Ford and as a result a 'feud' developed between them. Virginia began carrying a stick and a grass blade around with her for 'protection.'
In January 1953 there was a fight between the two women and Virginia scratched Mrs. Lavinia Ford's face. The following day Ralph's father had a warrant issued against Virginia for assault and battery and, on advice of the commonwealth's attorney, the warrant was amended to include 'supected of being of unsound mind.' Virginia was not taken into custody under the warrant. Ralph took her to her parents' home and employed a lawyer to defend her. The warrant was dismissed on the condition that Virginia move and stay away from 'Holly Hill Farm' and that she take psychiatric treatment.
During this time Ralph visited Virginia at her parents' home, trying to decide whether it would be possible to live with her again away from 'Holly Hill Farm.' On January 27, while visiting her, she became abusive toward him and he decided they could not live together again.
The evidence shows that Ralph at no time used any abusive language toward his wife and never inflicted any physical violence on her. The testimony of her mother, father and other members of her family shows that he was kind, patient and considerate toward her through all of the difficult years of their marriage.
On February 1, and again on February 18, 1953, Virginia wrote to Ralph, admitting her mistreatment of him and asking forgiveness for the many false accusations she had made.
The above statement of facts is without contradiction in the record.
The appellant seeks to avoid the responsibility for her conduct over a period of years on the ground that she was insane. She has never been adjudged insane by a lunacy commission, but she offers in evidence the deposition of Dr. Harry Brick and a written statement of Dr. H. R. Masters, expert psychiatrists. She also relies on the charge in the warrant of January 14 that 'she was suspected of being of unsound mind.'
On February 10, 1953, Ralph took Virginia to Richmond, at the request of her parents, to see Dr. Harry Brick. Dr. Brick talked with both Ralph and Virginia in order to obtain a case history. He saw her again on February 12 and before examining her administered to her the 'truth serum.' Based upon the case history and his examination, he testified that she was suffering from a mental illness at that time; that she presented symptoms of a depression and a paranoid state; that her actions during the period from January 1, 1953, through February 12 could not have been wilful or intentional or her part; that during the same period of time she could not have been capable of transacting any except the very simplest business, nor was she capable of deciding between right and wrong with respect to her marital duties and obligations, or of fully understanding and reasoning out what her marital duties and obligations were. At another point in his deposition he stated that her mental illness went back 'for at least six months' prior to February 10 and 12, and that for at least that length of time 'she was out of her wits and not responsible.'
Dr. Howard R. Masters examined the appellant in 1947 while she was suffering the after-effects of a hospital and surgical experience. His statement, which was offered in evidence, reveals that he examined her over a four-week period; that she had 'an extensive personality disorder of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paramont Coal Co. Virginia, LLC v. McCoy
...weighing all aspects of expert witness evidence, including the witness’ credentials and possible bias. See, e.g., Ford v. Ford, 200 Va. 674, 679, 107 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1959) (explaining that an expert witness' "possible bias" affects the weight to be given the testimony); Seneca Falls Greenh......
-
White v. Com.
...the existence of a person's mental disease or state of mind. See Jones, 202 Va. at 241, 117 S.E.2d at 71. But see Ford v. Ford, 200 Va. 674, 680, 107 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1959); Davis v. Alderson, 125 Va. 681, 691, 100 S.E. 541, 544 Based solely upon Dr. Brock's evidence, a jury would be compel......
-
City of Roanoke v. Roanoke County
...accept this testimony or reject it. It wass for the court to decide what weight should be given their expert testimony. Ford v. Ford, 200 Va. 674, 679, 107 S.E.2d 397. The record shows that the court disregarded, as it had a right to do, the conclusions of the experts with regard to the hyp......
-
Walrod v. Matthews
...or the court trying the case without a jury, to determine the weight to be given the testimony of expert witnesses. Ford v. Ford, 200 Va. 674, 679, 107 S.E.2d 397, 401, and authorities there cited. Or, to put the matter another way, in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Norfolk v. McCullers, 189 Va......