Haldane v. Bogy

• Decision Date: 09 October 1962
• Citation: 208 Cal.App.2d 302,25 Cal.Rptr. 392
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Eldon O. HALDANE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mrs. Vernon C. (Daisy) BOGY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 26077.

Page 392

25 Cal.Rptr. 392

208 Cal.App.2d 302

Eldon O. HALDANE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mrs. Vernon C. (Daisy) BOGY, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 26077.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Oct. 9, 1962.

Eldon O. Haldane, in pro. per.

No appearance for respondent.

HERNDON, Justice.

This is an appeal purportedly taken from a judgment of dismissal entered in favor of respondent in a companion case to Haldane v. Bogy, 25 Cal.Rptr. 389, passed upon this day by this court. Again the record fails to disclose the entry of a judgment; hence, we shall consider the appeal as having been taken from the order granting respondent's motion to dismiss the action following appellant's failure to amend his complaint within the time allowed.

Appellant's complaint filed in propria persona is captioned 'Complaint--Damages (Intentionally Inflicting Severe Emotional Distress and Bodily Harm Resulting From It)' and, as in Haldane v. Bogy, 25 Cal.Rptr. 389, is a conglomerate of abusive epithets and conclusions stating no cause of action. Attached thereto as Exhibit A is a photo copy of appellant's wife's first amended complaint for divorce. Although appellant alleges that this document is a sham and 'had been months in secret preparation' and was filed 'for the malicious, sadistic satisfaction of the three named defendants', it appears from the record in said divorce action of which the trial court properly took judicial notice, (Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 178 Cal.App.2d 140, 141, 2 Cal.Rptr. 716), that his wife's original complaint for divorce had set forth the simple statement of a charge of cruelty as permitted by section 426b of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the particularized amendment had been filed only after appellant had demurred to the original complaint on the ground of uncertainty.

The defendants in the instant action are two attorneys who have been licensed to practice law in California since 1915 and 1933, respectively, and the respondent, a 'family friend of many years.' Appellant's complaint states: 'All three named defendants are women of advanced years, lonely, frustrated, embittered, unhappy; they are professional misanthropists and troublemakers, with a seething hatred of the male.' Expressions such as these generally tell more of the character of the author than of the parties described; obviously, they add nothing to the substance of a pleading.

The complaint's sold direct statement regarding respondent is the following: 'Defendant Mrs. Vernon C. (Daisy) Bogy aided and abetted the other defendants at every turn; she paid $50.00 to attorney Wilhelmina Helen King Chagnon to file the original groundless action alluded to; she wrongfully harbored and secreted plaintiff's wife and children during June, 1960 for the purpose of diminishing and nullifying plaintiff's influence over his own family; all of these acts were done with express and expressed purpose to injure plaintiff, cause him severe and prolonged mental and physical anguish.' As indicated in Haldane v. Bogy, 25 Cal.Rptr. 389, the records in the divorce action indicate that appellant's wife had been granted custody of the children on June 2, 1960, and appellant had been enjoined and restrained from annoying and molesting her pending further proceedings. Despite the restraining...