Haring v. Haring, Gen. No. 69--13
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | CRAVEN |
| Citation | 260 N.E.2d 396,125 Ill.App.2d 116 |
| Parties | Suzanne HARING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Frederick HARING, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. . Fifth District |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 69--13 |
Page 396
v.
Calvin Frederick HARING, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Rehearing Denied July 23, 1970.
[125 Ill.App.2d 117]
Page 397
Earl L. Vuagniaux, Edwardsville, for appellant.Gerald McGivern, Alton, for appellee.
CRAVEN, Presiding Justice.
This is an appeal from a decree granting a divorce to plaintiff, Suzanne Haring, against defendant, Calvin Frederick Haring, Jr., on the grounds of extreme and repeated physical cruelty and awarding her custody of the children, certain property and child support.
Defendant-husband, in his answer to the complaint, denied that the plaintiff-wife had a cause of action and pleaded recrimination as an affirmative defense. During the trial this affirmative defense was amended to specifically allege that plaintiff was guilty of adultery with one Robert McLean and also was guilty of extreme and repeated mental cruelty during the time in that she kept company with Robert McLean over her husband's objections.
A petition for temporary alimony, child support, solicitors' fees and costs was filed by plaintiff. Thereafter defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment was denied, the court holding that there were disputed facts. The case was heard on the merits by the court without a jury. The court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and granted plaintiff the divorce on the grounds of extreme and repeated physical cruelty on the part of the defendant.
In this appeal defendant contends that the evidence and the law do not support the trial court's finding of [125 Ill.App.2d 118] extreme and repeated physical cruelty nor its finding against defendant on the defense of recrimination. He also contends that the trial court failed to rule correctly on certain objections to evidence and upon defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, Suzanne Haring, aged 28 years, and Calvin Haring, aged 29 years, were married September 7, 1957. Three children were born of the marriage, Ricky, aged 9 1/2 years, Robie, aged 8 years, and Mark, aged 6 years.
Plaintiff testified that while on a trip to the Ozarks on September 1, 1968, defendant pushed her against the door frame of a cottage, causing pain in her right side and injuring her face. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Della McLean and Robert C. McLean, Jr., friends, who were present on the trip. Both Della and Robert McLean testified that on this occasion, plaintiff was crying and had a bruise on the side of her head and stated that her husband had shoved her into the door molding. Defendant, called under Section 60 of the Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 110, para. 60), admitted that upon this occasion he forced his wife against the cabin wall, causing a red mark on her face, but stated he did it in defense of himself.
As a second act of physical cruelty, plaintiff testified that on September 3, 1968, after she had refused to accompany defendant on a search for a trailer hitch for his car, defendant hit her on the face, around the temple, which caused a bruise. He then picked her up by the neck and threw her on the bed. She testified that he then came at her with a knife, pushed her on the floor, held the knive next to her neck and said he was going to take her life
Page 398
and his own. This testimony also was corroborated by the testimony of Della McLean, whose house plaintiff visited that day. Della McLean testified that plaintiff had a bruise by her temple and a black-and-blue [125 Ill.App.2d 119] lip, as well as a bruise on one of her arms, and that plaintiff told her that her husband had beaten her that morning and threatened her with a butcher knife.On his direct testimony, in defense, defendant testified that before he pushed plaintiff into the wall on the September 1 occasion she had slammed the cabin door in his face and hit him on the arm and chest. He also testified that on the September 3 occasion she hit him in the face and hand and kicked him. There was no corroboration of defendant's testimony as to these acts by any other witness.
Some ten witnesses, other than defendant, testified for defendant, including defendant's mother, brother, the brother's wife, and the two older children of the parties. Several of these witnesses were neighbors who lived near the Haring home....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., No. 23937
...v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 358 S.E.2d 170 (Ct.App.1987) (recrimination and condonation affirmative defenses to adultery); Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396 (1970) (recrimination affirmative defense to In the instant proceeding there was no evidence presented by Ms. C. to estab......
-
Melichar v. Ost, Civ. No. K-77-391.
...hearing, and the apparent availability of recrimination as a defense to an adultery divorce action in Illinois. See Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396, 399 (1970), in which the Court Defendant's defense of recrimination, affirmatively pleaded, if proved, would have barred ......
-
Bilsky v. Bilsky, No. 56679
...statutory ground for divorce (Standard, supra.), it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. As stated in Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, at 121 to 122, 260 N.E.2d 396, at 399 'While we recognize that adultery seldom can be proved as a direct fact and that it may be establis......
-
Kerbis v. Kerbis, No. 60300
...that testimony need not be corroborated by other evidence. (Surratt v. Surratt, 12 Ill.2d 21, 145 N.E.2d Page 6 594; Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396.) However, the acts of physical cruelty must be clearly proved and the physical stature of the parties may be considered ......
-
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., No. 23937
...v. Oyler, 293 S.C. 4, 358 S.E.2d 170 (Ct.App.1987) (recrimination and condonation affirmative defenses to adultery); Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396 (1970) (recrimination affirmative defense to In the instant proceeding there was no evidence presented by Ms. C. to estab......
-
Melichar v. Ost, Civ. No. K-77-391.
...hearing, and the apparent availability of recrimination as a defense to an adultery divorce action in Illinois. See Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396, 399 (1970), in which the Court Defendant's defense of recrimination, affirmatively pleaded, if proved, would have barred ......
-
Bilsky v. Bilsky, No. 56679
...statutory ground for divorce (Standard, supra.), it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. As stated in Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, at 121 to 122, 260 N.E.2d 396, at 399 'While we recognize that adultery seldom can be proved as a direct fact and that it may be establis......
-
Kerbis v. Kerbis, No. 60300
...that testimony need not be corroborated by other evidence. (Surratt v. Surratt, 12 Ill.2d 21, 145 N.E.2d Page 6 594; Haring v. Haring, 125 Ill.App.2d 116, 260 N.E.2d 396.) However, the acts of physical cruelty must be clearly proved and the physical stature of the parties may be considered ......