Hardlicka v. Hrdlicka
| Decision Date | 06 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 25,565 |
| Citation | 213 N.W. 919,171 Minn. 213 |
| Parties | ELLEN A. HARDLICKA v. JAMES W. HRDLICKA |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action for divorce in the district court for Olmsted county. The case was tried before Callaghan, J., who made findings and ordered judgment for a limited separation in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Judgment for separation of husband and wife sustained.
1. Upon the facts stated in the opinion the evidence is sufficient to support a judgment for separation.
Award of use of homestead and support money proper.
2. The award, incident to such separation, to the wife for herself and children was authorized and proper.
Finding as to value of homestead sustained.
3. The finding as to the value of the homestead was sustained by the evidence.
Divorce 19 C.J. p. 53 n. 98; p. 142 n. 52; p. 264 n. 49; p. 267 n 82; p. 357 n. 34.
Fraser & Fraser, for appellant.
O. E. Hammer and John L. Brin, for respondent.
Defendant appealed from a judgment for separation for a period of five years.
The parties have seven living children, one having lost his life in the World War. Defendant is a steady-working railroad section foreman earning $115 per month, and by frugal habits has been able to acquire a good home worth in excess of $4,500.
The son who died in service was insured for $10,000, in favor of the mother, payable at the rate of $57.50 per month. Defendant sought to have this money turned over to him and, failing, ceased buying supplies for the home and notified the merchants through the newspaper not to extend the plaintiff credit on his account. He insisted on plaintiff's spending the $57.50 for the support of the family, also on her keeping an itemized account and would not buy or pay for anything until that was exhausted. This continued from 1919 to June, 1923.
In 1913 defendant choked plaintiff and in 1919 he struck her. On one occasion in the presence of plaintiff he attempted to strike one of the children with a chair which missed him and hit the sideboard knocking a round out of the chair. He has at times driven the children from the home. He frequently shook his fist in plaintiff's face and threatened violence.
For more than 12 years there has been constant quarreling. Defendant continually swore at plaintiff calling her vile and obscene names and frequently has applied epithets to her involving an accusation of infidelity. His attitude toward the family provoked frequent trouble. He was stubborn and often extremely disagreeable. He aligned himself against the wife and all the children, whose testimony supported the plaintiff's claims.
About June 1, 1923, defendant returned home and demanded to know why the meal was not ready and was told by plaintiff that there was nothing in the house with which to prepare a meal. He swore at plaintiff, left the house and has never returned to live with the family. Since then he has not provided for the plaintiff or the home, except a suit of clothes for two of the boys.
1. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the granting of a separation. But we think the evidence is quite sufficient. Such relief does not depend upon actual personal violence. Here we have violence, not recent, followed by unkind language, inconsiderate conduct unreasonable demands, groundless accusations of infidelity, bringing about an atmosphere subversive of the relationship of husband and wife rendering it impossible for the parties to discharge the duties of married life, and further continuance of such relationship has been rendered intolerable. While the evidence does not directly prove impairment of health, we may infer that such conduct was not beneficial. For six months after leaving the home defendant did little to provide for the family. This long course of unkind words, swearing, vulgar accusations, disagreeable and penny-exacting conduct sears and scars, provokes bitterness, breeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial