Gilbert v. Gilbert, 1937
| Decision Date | 07 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 1937,1937 |
| Citation | 185 A.2d 460,123 Vt. 200 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dale H. GILBERT v. Mildred C. GILBERT. |
Ryan & Ryan, Montpelier, for plaintiff.
No counsel for libellee.
Before HOLDEN, SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the husband's libel for divorce in uncontested proceedings before the Washington County Court. The action was founded on the claim of intolerable severity.
The facts reported by the court establish that the parties were married July 4, 1953 and one child has been born of the marriage. The relationship between the parties became strained and differences developed which culminated in their separation in April 1961. During the summer months over this period the libellant was employed in highway construction work and occasionally returned from work at a time later than the usually appointed supper hour. On a few such occasions he was told by his wife that he would have to prepare his own evening meal. At various times during this period, the libellee refused to have marital relations with the libellant, but the court expressly found there was not a complete denial of sexual relations by the libellee.
It can be inferred from the findings that this course of conduct by the wife caused her husband to become nervous, moody and irritable. Apart from such nervousness and irritability, there was no impairment of the libellant's health. But the findings expressly state that the trial court is unable to find that the acts of the libellee would result in a detriment to the libellant's health.
The libellant challenges the findings, urging that the facts reported are more limited than the evidence required. In particular, the libellant objects to the trier's use of the words 'on a few such occasions' and 'upon occasion,' contending that the acts complained of occurred with greater frequency than indicated by the court.
The testimony presented by the libellant concerning these events was equivocal and indefinite as to time. While the evidence might justify a stronger statement of the facts, the weight and persuasive effect of the testimony was for the trier alone and is not subject to revision in this respect on appeal. 12 V.S.A. § 2385; Bresette v. Knapp, 121 Vt. 376, 379, 159 A.2d 329.
The appellant also challenges the failure of the court to find that libellant's nervous condition improved after his separation from his wife. As to this, there was no dispute and the evidence justified the finding claimed. The omission, however, is harmless. Relief from the nervous tension of an imcompatible marriage, after separation, does not mean the prior cohabitation had threatened the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Murray v. Webster
-
Winslow v. Winslow
...imminent danger. Mathewson v. Mathewson, 81 Vt. 173, 179, 69 A. 646; Souther v. Souther, 103 Vt. 48, 52, 151 A. 504; Gilbert v. Gilvert, 123 Vt. 200, 202, 185 A.2d 460. The critical question is, therefore, whether there was any misconduct on the part of the libellee and, if so, did it cause......
-
Little v. Little
...of the witnesses, and the persuasive effect of the testimony. 12 V.S.A. § 2385; Crossman v. Crossman, supra; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 123 Vt. 200, 202, 185 A.2d 460. Plaintiff offered evidence that Fred Little at one time seemed confused in counting out a sum of money, and that on another occasi......
-
Davis v. Davis, 145-69
...distress occasioned thereby.' This view was later confirmed in Pacquin v. Pacquin, 125 Vt. 243, 245, 214 A.2d 90. In Gilbert v. Gilbert, 123 Vt. 200, 202, 185 A.2d 460, 461 this Court held, 'To warrant a decree of divorce on the strength of mental suffering, there must be an affirmative fin......