Grewe v. Grewe.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1946
• Docket Number: No. 216.,216.
• Citation: 47 A.2d 840
• Parties: GREWE v. GREWE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

47 A.2d 840

GREWE

v.GREWE.

No. 216.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 27, 1946.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit for divorce by Elly Appel Grewe against Hinrich D. Grewe. From a decree dismissing the suit, the petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

I. Oscar Spevack, Solicitor, of Perth Amboy (Samuel S. Cohen, of Perth Amboy, of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

David T. Wilentz, of Perth Amboy, for defendant-respondent.

WELLS, Judge.

On August 6, 1943, the wife filed a petition for divorce. An amended petition was filed February 25, 1944.

The parties were married on April 30, 1922, in Germany. They came to New Jersey on October 3, 1923, where they have both lived ever since. Two children, Rudolf and Margot, were born of the marriage. At the time of the hearing Rudolf was in the service somewhere in the Pacific, and Margot was living with her mother. They are now both of age.

The amended petition charges that the husband was guilty of extreme cruelty towards the wife.

Particularly specifying the acts of extreme cruelty committed by the husband, the wife says: on August 5, 1940, the husband, while under the influence of liquor, was driving his automobile, in which she and her children were passengers, in a reckless manner, and attempted to kill all of them by running into a pole; on May 10, 1941, the husband refused to support the wife and her children and threatened to kill her with a pipe; on January 8, 1942, the husband chased his wife, brandishing a long fishing knife; on October 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23 and 24, 1942, the wife and her daughters were forced to flee the house for fear of their lives, because of the vicious conduct that the husband exhibited while under the influence of liquor; on December 21, 1942, the date of the last act of cruelty complained of, during a drunken rage, the husband carried the wife into the kitchen and attempted to choke her, and she had to beg and scream until she was finally released. By reason of the said acts of cruelty, the wife says that her health became impaired and her life was rendered one of utter wretchedness and misery.

The husband in his answer and in his testimony denied the specific acts of cruelty set forth in the amended petition, and charged that the acts and debts were all fictitious and false. He says that he was never guilty of any acts of extreme cruelty, and denied that he had ever refused to support her or the children.

The learned advisory master found that extreme cruelty had not been established and advised a decree dismissing the wife's petition.

We agree with counsel for the wife that the issues ‘are essentially factual.’ The wife and her daughter, Margot, were the only witnesses to testify for the wife; and the husband and two neighbors were the only witnesses to testify for the husband. The question of credibility was preeminently one for the advisory master to decide.

The testimony offered in behalf of the wife was greatly discredited by the admissions of both the daughter and wife on cross-examination and by the entries in the wife's diaries which were read into the record and admitted by the wife. It is significant that, while her diaries were filled with her comments on the events of her married life, no mention was made therein of the alleged attempt of her husband to kill her and the family in August of 1940; nor did it appear that there was anything recorded in her diaries as to any of the alleged acts of cruelty set forth in her amended petition. On the other hand, the diaries strongly support the testimony of the husband that the trouble was not caused by any act or acts of cruelty on his part. There can be no boubt that the wife was violently opposed to her husband's drinking beer, the smell of which she detested, or any other intoxicating liquor. She testified that her husband's drinking was the biggest trouble in their married life, but admits that money was also a factor because they were always ‘short’. As early as May of 1940 she was insisting that her husband should pay all the bills and give her $10 a week for her cloths and for savings.

She at that time wrote in her diary that she had made up her mind then to ask for a separation and to leave her husband. On September 7, 1940, she did leave her husband and didn't return until December 8, 1940, and then, according to her testimony, at his earnest solicitations and because he threatened to set fire to the house and commit suicide unless she came back.

Sometime in 1940 her husband began to work on war work, and his earnings were substantially increased, and he said that up until May, 1942, he ‘had to give her $45 a week to have peace.’ She was to pay the taxes; but she didn't do it, so that he gave her only $20 a week and paid the taxes himself and went to work and finished the house.

She admitted that, in self-defense, she threw things at him and called him opprobious names; that she had told him she never would have married him ‘if he would want to drink,’ so if he couldn't quit drinking now, he should leave her. She was asked on cross-examination: ‘Q. It was either you or the liquor?’ She replied, ‘That's right.'

She testified that she ran out of the house to the neighbors on a number of occasions to protect herself and children from her husband and returned to the house when he was asleep. She was asked ‘Why did you go?’ and answered, ‘To have peace.’ ‘In other words, you wouldn't tolerate your husband while he was drunk? A. I didn't want to be annoyed.'

Her cross-examination shows that the main reasons the wife left her husband were financial and personal dislike caused by his drinking rather than any fear she had of him. She said he wasn't ‘stingy’, that he gave her enough money to keep house, but that he insisted that whatever was left over he was going to put in the bank. She told him that under those terms she wasn't going to live with him. She was then asked (quoting from her diary under date of May, 1942) ‘Q. Now, later on, Monday, May 6th, you write as follows: ‘I told him I would stay if he would give me $10.00 more a week, so I could save something too and to get something for myself and the house. I gave him until Monday morning. If he insisted on...