Grove v. Grove
| Decision Date | 24 March 1931 |
| Citation | 239 Ky. 32 |
| Parties | Grove v. Grove. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
8. Husband and Wife. — Mere provocation or disobedience does not authorize husband to inflict corporal punishment upon wife (Ky. Stats., sec. 2117).
9. Divorce. — Not only physical violence, but criticism, coldness, neglect, contempt, and disrespect may constitute continuous cruelty sufficient to sustain charge of "cruel and inhuman treatment" for not less than six months, indicating settled aversion to wife, sufficient to justify divorce (Ky. Stats., sec. 2117).
Ky. Stats., sec. 2117, provides that if a husband habitually cruel and inhuman manner as to indicate a settled aversion to her, or to destroy permanently her peace and happiness, behaves toward a wife for not less than six months in such the wife may have a divorce.
10. Divorce. — Indiscretions of wife and disobedience of husband's wishes in associations with youth did not constitute "like fault" with violence and cruelty charged against husband, precluding divorce (Ky. Stats., sec. 2117).
Ky. Stats., sec. 2117, gives the wife the right to a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment, when not in like fault.
11. Divorce. — Wife's indiscretions in associating with youth against husband's wishes did not deprive her of all remedy for wrongs done her by husband.
12. Divorce. — Husband's cruel conduct justified wife in obeying husband's directions to leave home.
13. Divorce. — Where bitterness engendered by litigation rendered it unlikely that divorce from bed and board would be adequate, court granted absolute divorce (Ky. Stats., sec. 2117).
14. Divorce. — Evidence held to show cruelty entitling wife to absolute divorce and reasonable alimony (Ky. Stats., sec. 2117).
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, Second Division).
KENDRICK R. LEWIS and RICHARD B. CRAWFORD for appellant.
WALTER S. LAPP for appellee.
Reversing on appeal and affirming on cross-appeal.
This record contains the unhappy history of a misadventure in matrimony. The parties were married in New York about twenty years ago and immediately thereafter located in Louisville where they have since lived. They have a son about nineteen years old, named for his father. Mr. Grove engaged in the moving picture business and has been successful. In 1927, serious trouble began to brew between him and his wife which culminated in a final separation. Several temporary separations had preceded the final one. In August, 1928, Mrs. Grove instituted an action for alimony and divorce upon the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, and such cruel beating and injury, or attempt at injury, as indicated an outrageous temper in the husband and probable danger to the wife from remaining with him. The husband filed a counterclaim for divorce upon the ground that the wife had been guilty of such lewd and lascivious conduct with a man named Norman Hall as proved her to be unchaste. Later the counterclaim was amplified by amendment so as to charge the wife with improper conduct with an unknown man. In an affidavit filed the husband made an accusation of adultery against his wife.
The testimony took a wide range and many trival circumstances were delineated. Judge Allen, in an opinion prepared with his usual felicity, reviewed the entire record, reaching the conclusion that neither party was entitled to relief. Although admitting that the husband had been guilty of striking and abusing his wife, doubt was expressed whether the misconduct had continued for a sufficient period, or was carried to such an extent, as to indicate a settled aversion to his wife. But he based his refusal of relief to the wife upon a finding that she was at fault because of her indiscretions, and because of her disobedience of her husband's wishes respecting her association with Norman Hall. Mrs. Grove has prosecuted an appeal and Mr. Grove has taken a cross-appeal.
It would be useless as well as burdensome to cite all the details of this domestic debacle, and we shall state merely the ultimate facts and conclusions.
It was testified by the wife that in the fall of 1927, Mr. Grove began serious mistreatment, such as striking and sometimes injuring her, pulling her hair, falsely accusing her, severely scolding her, driving her away, and threatening greater injury. She further complains that the cruel charges made by the defendant in pleading and preparing his defense were groundless and calculated to destroy her good name, and that such charges, made without evidence, were bolstered up with the perjured testimony of criminals and friends of criminals. Standing alone these facts plainly constituted such cruelty as entitled the plaintiff to a divorce and alimony. Riley v. Riley, 233 Ky. 134, 25 S.W. (2d) 59, 61; Kahr v. Kahr, 199 Ky. 434, 251 S.W. 199; Ramey v. Ramey, 224 Ky. 398, 6 S.W. (2d) 470; McGaughey v. McGaughey, 231 Ky. 209, 21 S.W. (2d) 245; Miller v. Miller, 229 Ky. 436, 17 S.W. (2d) 412; Jones v. Jones, 205 Ky. 538, 266 S.W. 48.
The chancellor refused relief to plaintiff, however, because she was not without fault, since she had given Mr. Grove such provocation as mitigated, if it did not excuse, his violence. The conclusion that Mrs. Grove had contributed to the collapse of the marital relationship was deemed adequate to preclude her from obtaining a divorce or alimony. The correctness of that conclusion involves a consideration of the conduct of Mrs. Grove. It consists of several episodes, and is interlaced with the conduct of her husband.
Three or four years prior to the separation a youth named Norman Hall became acquainted with the Grove family and during that period of time had been an intimate associate of Mr. and Mrs. Grove, and of their son. The whole testimony, except in two particulars, relates to the association of Mrs. Grove with this youth. She danced with him at the Inn Logola. A witness testified that there was something suggestive about the manner of dancing. Aside from the vague and unsatisfactory nature of the testimony of that particular witness, it was clearly proven that Mrs. Grove, in the presence of friends, and some members of her family, merely danced in a decent and respectable style with the young man. Mr. Grove became very bitter toward the young man, and described him as a "soda water sheik." Judge Allen observed that the record exhibited Hall as an idler, probably as a parasite, but he did not find from the evidence that there was any conduct on the part of Mrs. Grove that could be called lewd or lascivious, and certainly nothing that proved her to be unchaste. If Hall merely performed the function of a "gigolo" for Mrs. Grove at the dances, no reflection is to be cast upon the character of a woman who utilizes such services, however much it may impugn her taste, or whatever may be thought of a man who engages in such occupation.
On one ocasion, Mr. Grove came to his apartment at the hotel and the room door was locked. It was opened upon his request, and Mrs. Grove and Hall were found in the room. Mr. Grove now urges that importance should be ascribed to the circumstance, but when the facts are stated it amounts to nothing. Hall and another young man named Young were at the apartment with Mrs. Grove when a certain musical instrument was desired. Young went to get it, and during the brief absence, Mr. Grove appeared upon the scene. Young soon returned with the musical instrument, and Mr. Grove thought nothing of the matter, leaving the young men there with his wife. After the action was filed Grove testified about the incident and referred to the fact that his confidence in his wife was unshaken. Indeed, he did not seek to attribute sinister meaning to the incidents now elaborated until he was unable to negotiate a settlement of the case. During the taking of his testimony, he said that he had told Mrs. Grove's attorney that he believed his wife was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial