Glick v. Glick

• Citation: 159 N.E. 33,86 Ind.App. 593
• Decision Date: 09 December 1927
• Docket Number: 12,989
• Parties: GLICK v. GLICK
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

159 N.E. 33

86 Ind.App. 593

GLICK v. GLICK

No. 12,989

Court of Appeals of Indiana

December 9, 1927

From Marion Superior Court (A 34,468); Joseph M. Milner, Judge.

Suit by Solomon Glick against Goldie M. Glick for divorce, in which the defendant filed a cross-bill. From a decree granting her a divorce and allowing her attorney fees, but denying her alimony, she appeals.

Reversed as to the alimony and remainder affirmed.

Joseph Collier, for appellant.

Chester L. Zechiel, for appellee.

OPINION

REMY, C. J.

Suit by appellee against appellant for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment. Appellant, in addition to a denial instituted a cross-suit against appellee for divorce and alimony, alleging in her petition cruel treatment and that at the time of the marriage, appellee falsely represented that he was in good health, when, in fact, he was an epileptic and was suffering from a venereal disease.

Trial resulted in a decree granting to appellant a divorce, with an allowance of $ 200 for her attorney, but denying her application for alimony.

Motions by appellant to modify the judgment and for new trial having been overruled, this appeal followed.

Whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to award alimony is the only question presented.

It appears from the evidence that the parties were married June 18, 1924, neither of them having previously been married though they were in middle life. In January, 1925, appellee had an attack of epilepsy, and a second attack in April, 1925. There is no direct evidence that he had suffered from epilepsy prior to the marriage. In May, 1925, after the second attack of epilepsy, appellant left her home and went to the home of her parents, where she remained until August, 1925, when she returned, and she and appellee lived together as husband and wife until January 11, 1926, at which time appellee had a third attack of epilepsy. A physician who was consulted, suspecting that the cause of the epilepsy was syphilis, recommended a blood test. A specialist made the test, and, in appellee's presence, reported that the test showed syphilis, and suggested that appellee see his physician "a couple of times a week and that at the end of twenty days a complete test would be made." Thereupon appellant told appellee that she would not live with him as his wife if he had syphilis; that she would go to the home of her parents and await the result of the final test which was to be made by the physicians. Appellee then became angry and struck appellant, following which, she left appellee's home and went to the home of her parents. Appellee then put new locks upon the doors of his house to prevent the entrance thereof by appellant, and ten days later began this suit. It appears that appellee, after his wife's departure, was treated for syphilis for some time, and later an examination showed no traces of the disease. It further appears from the uncontradicted evidence submitted at the trial that the value of appellee's property, in excess of his indebtedness, was $ 2,850, and that he was regularly employed at a monthly salary of $ 122. The property of appellant was of the value of $ 200. There were no children.

Under the evidence, did the court err in refusing to award alimony?

Section 20 of the Divorce Act of 1873 (Acts 1873 p. 107, § 1110 Burns 1926) provides: "The court shall make such decree for alimony, in all cases contemplated by this act, as the circumstances of the case shall render just...