Fuller v. Fuller

• Decision Date: 22 July 1899
• Citation: 33 S.E. 865,108 Ga. 256
• Parties: FULLER. v. FULLER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

33 S.E. 865

108 Ga. 256

FULLER.

v.FULLER.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 22, 1899.

WITNESS—SUBORNATION IN ANOTHER CASE— DIVORCE—HABITUAL INTOXICATION—CRUELTY—CHARGE OF ADULTERY—FAILURE TO SUPPORT—JUSTIFICATION.

1. Testimony tending to show that a defendant had endeavored to suborn a witness is inadmissible in the absence of any proof showing that such improper conduct had relation to the case on trial.

2. It is not, in order to prove "habitual intoxication" on the part of the respondent in a libel for divorce, essential to show that he was constantly and continuously drunk.

3. It is not cruel treatment to charge a wife with unchastity if she has been guilty thereof.

4. A husband is not bound to support his wife if she abandons him without just cause.

5. Though a libel for a divorce charging the respondent with conduct such as would in law authorize a divorce may be defeated by showing that the libelant was guilty of "like conduct, " the court should not, in the trial of such a case, submit to the jury the question whether or not improper conduct on the part of the libelant "justified" the respondent in being guilty of conduct of the same kind. The question of justification is not involved in such a trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Clayton county; C. C. Smith, Judge.

Libel by Eddie Fuller against C. G. Fuller, her husband, for divorce. From a judgment for respondent, libelant brings error. Reversed.

Arnold & Arnold and Watterson & Kimsey, for plaintiff in error.

Rosser & Carter, C. T. Roan, and W. M. Wright, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN, P. J. This was a libel for a divorce, the grounds of which were adultery, habitual intoxication, and cruel treatment. The jury found for the respondent. There was a motion for a new trial presenting the questions discussed below.

1. The libelant offered testimony tending to show that at a particular time and place the respondent had endeavored to suborn a witness, and induce him to swear falsely in some case to be thereafter tried. It was not, however, shown affirmatively that this alleged improper conduct on the part of the respondent had relation to the divorce case, nor did it appear that there was no other case in which he was interested, and in which this witness was expected to testify. Undoubtedly, conduct such as an attempt to suborn a witness in a given case can be legitimately proved against the guilty party at the trial thereof. Railroad Co. v. Lybrend, 99 Ga. 421, 27 S. E. 794, and cases there cited. But the bad conduct must have relation to the identical case under investigation, for it would be an exceedingly dangerous thing to allow the rights of a party in one case to be affected by proof of his misconduct with respect to any other case or transaction.

2. Complaint is made of the following charge of the court: "In reference to the question of habitual intoxication, gentlemen of the jury, I charge you this: That, in order for her to recover upon this ground, it would be necessary for you to believe from the evidence that he was an habitual drunkard; that he was habitually intoxicated. Habitual means continuous; it means an acquired habit; it means constant intoxication, gentlemen of the jury. I charge you that if you...