Gourlay v. Gourlay
| Citation | 16 R.I. 705,19 A. 142 |
| Parties | GOURLAY v. GOURLAY. |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1890 |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action for divorce.
Harnmon S. Babcock and Francis A. Miner, for petitioner. Amasa M. Eaton, for respondent.
WILBUR, J. A petition for divorce between these parties was heard at the April term of the court, in 1887, and dismissed for want of sufficient evidence to prove the domicile of the petitioner. 15 R. I. 572, 10 Atl. Rep. 592. This petition was tiled on the 8th day of February, 1888, and alleges a residence of four years before the filing of the petition, and charges willful desertion, continued drunkenness, neglect to provide, adultery, and other gross misbehavior and wickedness repugnant to, and in gross violation of, the marriage covenant, in this, that he deserted the petitioner for other women, and contracted venereal disease.
Since the hearing of the former petition between these parties, our statutes have been so amended as to permit either party to a petition for divorce to testify. We think the testimony now offered is sufficient to establish the fact that the petitioner was and is a domiciled inhabitant of this state, and had been for more than the year next before the filing of the petition.
The first and third grounds on which a divorce is claimed are desertion, and neglect to provide. We will consider them together. There is a large mass of testimony bearing upon these two charges, the substance of which is that in 1878 the respondent failed in business in New York; that litigation followed his failure to settle with his creditors for 50 cents on the dollar; that he thereupon left the city of New York, and went to Detroit, Mich., and went to work for his brother at a salary of $16 per week, one-half of which he regularly sent to his wife until she consented to his withholding the remittances, so that he might lay by a sum sufficient to settle with a New York creditor, which would enable him to return to that city, and engage in business again, and to live with his wife there; that the respondent provided a home for his wife in Detroit, to which he repeatedly urged her to go, but that she refused or neglected to comply with her husband's wishes in that regard under one pretext or another, preferring to remain where she was, with her parents, which she did until she came to this state, in 1884. The testimony upon these two charges, considered as a whole, is not, in our opinion, sufficient to prove that the respondent deserted the petitioner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Roberts
-
Ex parte Newbern
...393, 395; Ash v. Ash, 327 Ill.App. 656, 64 N.E.2d 741, 743); one who has 'gross and confirmed habits of intoxication' (Gourlay v. Gourlay, 16 R.I. 705, 19 A. 142, 143); one who has acquired the habit 'of using spiritous, malt or fermented liquors * * * to such an extent * * * as to deprive ......
-
Simonds v. Simonds, 17166
...47 N.W. 109; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 44 Minn. 132, 46 N.W. 236; Youngs v. Youngs, 130 Ill. 230, 22 N.E. 806, 6 L.R.A. 548; Gourley v. Gourley, 16 R.I. 705, 19 A. 142; and the annotation 54 A.L.R. Nelson on Divorce, Volume I, Section 7.05 states that, 'Apparently it is the weight of authority ......
-
Lester v. Sampson
...the uniform or u"7arying rule, but to be habitual must be the ordinary course of conduct—the general rule or custom. In Gourlay v. Gourlay, 16 R. I. 705, 19 Atl. 142, the court held that an habitual drunkard is a person whose bah, ts of drunkenness are confirmed and continued. In McBee v. M......