Garrison v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 29 October 1907
• Citation: 104 S.W. 980
• Parties: GARRISON v. GARRISON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

104 S.W. 980

GARRISON v. GARRISON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 29, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Fannie T. Garrison against Robert L. Garrison for alimony in which defendant filed a cross-petition for a divorce from plaintiff. From a judgment refusing relief to either party both appeal. Affirmed.

Morgan & Darragh, for appellant.

Finnell & Finnell, for appellee.

CLAY C.

Appellant Mrs. Fannie T. Garrison, and appellee, Robert L. Garrison were married in the month of August, 1876. They lived together at the home of appellee's parents until the year 1904, when appellant left the home of her husband. In 1906 appellant instituted this action for alimony, alleging that appellee abandoned her in April, 1904, without fault on her part, and that since that time he had failed and refused to live with her or to provide her a home or necessary support. She also charged appellant with habitually behaving towards her in such a careless and indifferent manner as to indicate a settled aversion to her and to destroy permanently her peace and happiness. To appellant's petition appellee filed an answer and cross-petition, denying appellant's charges, and charging her with having abandoned him, and asking a divorce from appellant. Thereupon appellant filed a reply denying that she abandoned appellee, and alleging that she was forced to leave appellee's home because of the insults and indignities heaped upon her by appellee's mother, and the statement of appellee's father that appellant was not wanted in his home. The allegations of the reply were controverted of record, proof was taken, and the case submitted to the chancellor, who entered a judgment refusing relief to either party. From that judgment both appellant and appellee have prosecuted this appeal.

A large amount of testimony was taken. By far the greater part was irrelevant and inadmissible. We shall not attempt to pass upon the numerous exceptions to the testimony, but shall confine ourselves to a brief statement of such testimony as was admissible, or was admitted without objection. Mrs. Betts, sister of appellant, testifies: That upon one occasion Mr. Daniel Garrison, father of appellee, came into her presence when she was preparing some toast for appellant at appellant's home, and, speaking of appellant, said: "I don't see what she stays here for, for nobody wants her." That during appellant's illness of typhoid fever neither Mr. nor Mrs. Daniel Garrison ever came upstairs to inquire about appellant's condition, and there was a great deal of wrangling between appellant and Mrs. Daniel Garrison when appellant left her home. Mrs. Fannie McClure testifies: That while at Mrs. Daniel Garrison's house, whenever appellant said anything, Mrs. Daniel Garrison would turn her head. That once, before Mrs. Daniel Garrison started to church, appellant said to her: "Tell me what you want for dinner, and I will get it for you." That Mrs. Daniel Garrison replied: "Never mind, I will get a little bite when I get home." That Mrs. Daniel Garrison then went through the dining room and locked that door, and then locked the kitchen door. That at another time, when she asked Mrs. Daniel Garrison to let her and appellant prepare the dining room for company, they did so, but, when they came back, Mrs. Daniel Garrison had changed everything on the table--the napkins and dishes they had arranged. Witness further states that Mrs. Daniel Garrison's manner towards appellant was mighty cold and distant. Robert Thompson, brother of appellant, testifies. That on January 1, 1905, he and appellant called on appellee at the school where he was teaching. That appellant stated that she was willing to live with appellee anywhere and place apart from his father and mother. That appellee replied that it took all he could make for his father and mother, and he couldn't do as she wished. That appellant asked him if he would contribute something to her support. Appellee answered that he would not give her a dollar, for she had left him. That appellant then told appellee that he well knew there had not been a word of unpleasantness between him and her for over a year, until the day that his mother cursed and abused her, and ordered her away from the place. To this appellee said nothing in reply. Mrs. Kemper testifies that, directly after appellant left the home of appellee, appellee stated that he was done with appellant. Ed Ransom also testifies that appellee made the same remark to him. Judge Bates testifies: That he and Rev. M. F. Moores went to appellee, at the instance and request of appellant, for the purpose of adjusting the difficulty; that Prof. Garrison said he was willing to do anything that was right; that appellant had opened the war, and would have to close it; that witness then told appellee that appellant was willing to live with him anywhere else, if it were only in two rooms; that appellee said that would be impossible, as he could not afford to run two houses; that he was perfectly willing for appellant to come back, and he would do for her as he had always done, but that he objected entirely to going anywhere else, as he could not run two establishments. The Rev. M. F. Moores testifies: That he, on or about November 24, 1904, in company with Judge Bates, had, at appellant's request, a conversation with appellee in reference to the difficulty between him and appellant; that witness expressed the desire that the difficulty might be settled in a Christian way, and stated to appellee that appellant was willing to live with him apart from his mother, but appellee seemed unwilling to make any concessions.

For appellee, Daniel Garrison, his father, testifies: That he was then in his eighty-first year. That appellee, who was about 60 years of age, was his only child. That appellant and appellee had been married over 27 years, and had always lived together at the home of witness until April, 1904, when appellant left his home. That his home was just outside the limits of Georgetown, and consisted of about 15 acres, worth about $3,500, upon which there was a mortgage for $2,200 that appellant once, prior to April, 1904, left and remained away for about five months. That appellant left because she claimed that witness and his wife were consuming what appellee made. That during all the time appellant staid at his home she was treated as though she were a visitor, with all the kindness that witness and wife could bestow upon her. That appellee never mistreated her by word or deed. That while appellant was gone the first time appellee left and waited on her while she was sick. That upon one occasion witness went to the stair door to call appellant to breakfast. That appellant answered him, but did not come to breakfast until it was over. When she came, she said it was strange she could not be called. Witness told her he had called her. Appellant replied that she would never eat at that table again. Appellant then went upstairs, and for three years thereafter took her meals in her room. That her meals were prepared by Mrs. Daniel Garrison, and were carried to appellant either by witness or appellee. That his wife had been feeble all her life, and of late had been prostrated most of the time. That appellant had no household cares except to look after her own room. That when appellee requested appellant to help his mother appellant...