Grant v. Grant

• Decision Date: 06 April 1922
• Docket Number: No. 5590.,5590.
• Citation: 116 A. 481
• Parties: GRANT v. GRANT.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

116 A. 481

GRANT

v. GRANT.

No. 5590.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 6, 1922.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.

Petition for divorce by Elizabeth C. Grant against James S. Grant. Petition granted, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted.

Fitzgerald & Higgins, of Providence (Laurence J. Hogan, of Pawtucket, of counsel), for petitioner.

Curtis, Matteson, Boss & Letts and Ira Lloyd Letts, all of Providence, for respondent.

STEARNS, J. This is a petition for divorce for neglect to provide and extreme cruelty. At the hearing in the superior court petitioner did not press the charge of neglect to provide. The petition was granted on the ground of extreme cruelty. To this decision exception was duly taken by respondent, and the cause is here on his bill of exceptions.

Some other exceptions were taken to certain rulings of the trial justice, but they are unimportant and require no special mention.

The question is: Was the decision of the trial justice clearly erroneous? Sayles v. Sayles, 41 R. I. 171, 103 Atl. 225. The petitioner is a woman of middle age, who, prior to her marriage, had been a teacher in a city high school for some 18 or 19 years. The respondent is an electrical contractor, who does electric wiring, etc., in houses and other buildings. A part of his work was manual labor, which at times of necessity resulted in covering his clothes and body with dirt. Prior to their marriage the parties had known each other for several years, during which period, although no actual engagement existed, they had been looking forward to a marriage eventually. On several occasions they came to the conclusion that they were unsuited to each other, and for a time the intimacy ceased, only to be renewed again, and finally they were married.

On the evening of their wedding day they went from Providence to Boston, at which latter city they started from the railroad station to walk to a hotel. After walking a considerable distance with their bags in their hands, petitioner complained of being tired and suggested that a taxicab should have been secured. Thereupon respondent dropped the bags he was carrying to the sidewalk, became enraged and upbraided his wife so noisily and so long as to attract the attention of the passers-by. His wife was terrified and humiliated by his conduct, and, on their return to Providence several days later, she was in a highly nervous condition and ill as a result of the fear with which her husband had inspired her. The respondent never struck her or threatened to strike her. On several occasions, because of his inability to find immediately some article in the house which he wished to use, he broke out into violent and loud complaints which were heard by people outside of the house.

Respondent says that he has no charge to make against his wife except in regard to her extreme particularity, as he calls it, in regard to his table manners, his clothes, and his personal cleanliness. Petitioner and other witnesses testify that respondent at times often used profane language to his wife and in her presence. Respondent denies this charge. He does not claim that the other charges of his wife are false, but says they are grossly exaggerated. He apparently resented the attempt of his wife to induce him to conform to some of the elementary and fundamental usages of civilized society. He refused to change his underwear for long periods or to bathe, although his work was of such a nature as to cause him to perspire freely, with the result that his wife was at times nauseated by the odors emanating from his person. He claimed that he did take a number of baths, but did this secretly and without the knowledge of his wife. His reason for thus acting was that his wife had annoyed him by her frequent attempts to induce him to take baths. He persisted in his conduct, although he knew that his wife was greatly disturbed and distressed thereby. He refused to change...