Hatfield v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 06 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7363. |
| Citation | 167 S.E. 89,113 W.Va. 135 |
| Parties | HATFIELD v. HATFIELD. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted September 21, 1932.
Syllabus by the Court.
Removal of divorce proceeding to another circuit rests in trial court's discretion (Code 1931, 56-9-1).
Appellate court will not disturb trial court's refusal to transfer divorce proceeding to another circuit, in absence of affirmative showing of abuse of discretion (Code 1931 56-9-1).
Doctrine of "inequitable conduct," barring husband's right to divorce, applies only where husband's inequitable conduct has caused or substantially contributed to wife's offense on which husband predicates his divorce cause.
1. Under the provisions of chapter 128, § 1, Code 1923 (now Official Code, 56-9-1), removal of a divorce proceeding to another circuit rests in the discretion of the trial court and, unless the record evidences error, the appellate court will not disturb a refusal of the trial court to transfer such cause.
2. The doctrine of "inequitable conduct," sufficient to bar a petitioner's right to a divorce, applies only where petitioner's "inequitable conduct" has caused or contributed substantially to respondent's offense on which petitioner predicates his divorce cause.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County.
Suit by T. S. Hatfield against Sadie Hatfield, in which defendant filed cross-bill. From an adverse decree, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. E R. Byrne, of Charleston, for appellant.
Chas Ritchie, of Charleston, and Coleman A. Hatfield, of Logan, for appellee.
By its decree of January 11, 1932, the circuit court of Logan county sustained the adulterous charge alleged by T. S. Hatfield in his divorce proceeding against his wife, Sadie Hatfield, and granted him a divorce a vinculo and the custody of his three infant children. Upon motion of the litigants, the appeal granted Sadie Hatfield is now considered as a motion to reverse said decree. Appellant charges error (1) in the trial court's refusal to remove the proceedings to another circuit; (2) in the granting of a divorce to the husband; and (3) in refusing to grant appellant custody of the children and a divorce based on her charges of adultery and cruelty on the part of T. S. Hatfield (alleged in her answer and cross-bill and denied by the husband).
Did the court err in its refusal to transfer the proceeding to another circuit? When this proceeding was considered by this court before (Hatfield v. Hatfield, 109 W.Va. 212, 153 S.E. 493), a reason for remanding the cause was the trial court's failure to dispose of defendant's motion to remove the cause to another circuit. Thereafter defendant renewed her motion for removal of the cause to such a circuit court as would not be under the alleged domination of Hatfield; and, in support thereof, filed affidavits of Grant Walters (defendant's brother), Ethel Walters, his wife, and Hobert Ramey. The essence of these affidavits was that it would be perilous for Sadie Hatfield, or any witness in her behalf, to appear in Logan county in the prosecution of her cause. The order, which denied removal of the proceeding, shows that, in opposition to the wife's motion, testimony of twelve persons was taken in open court and that affidavits of some of the witnesses were likewise filed. Neither the testimony itself nor the purport thereof is made a part of the record. By statutory enactment (Code 1923, c. 128, § 1, now Code 1931, 56-9-1), removal of such a cause to another circuit court lay in the discretion of the trial court; and, although the court's action is reviewable by the appellate court, reversal is always predicated upon error which appears from the record. In the absence of any affirmative showing that the discretion vested in the trial court has been abused, this court will not interfere with its conclusion.
The litigants were married in 1917, and for a time lived in Barnabus, Logan county; but in 1925, upon the election of plaintiff as sheriff of Logan county, the parties took up their residence at Logan, and had their living quarters in connection with the county jail. Separation occurred on November 18, 1928, when, as defendant alleges and details in her testimony, she left her home when warned that her husband was coming to kill her.
The husband charges his wife with adulterous conduct, but it would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence adduced to prove the charges. Several witnesses testify to acts of sexual intercourse with the wife during the latter part of 1927 and during 1928, while others narrate witnessing scenes of indecorum. Some of the testimony details such flagrant improprieties as to becloud the credence of the relators. The finding of adulterous conduct on the part of Sadie Hatfield is substantially supported by the evidence, and we shall not disturb the conclusion of the lower court on that issue.
The prayer of Mrs. Hatfield's cross-bill would dissolve the marital status in her favor on charges of cruelty and adultery on the part of T. S. Hatfield. The testimony of Mrs. Hatfield, in some instances corroborated by others, but denied in totality by the husband, evidences several occurrences of physical violence and one when he, striking her with a whip, "cut the blood out clear around." The wife depicts her husband as a person of vicious habits and character and addicted to the use of intoxicants. The acme of cruelty, according to her, was evidenced on the night of her departure from Logan when, late at night and scantily clad, she was hurried from her home as she prepared for sleep that she might evade a death threat made by her husband and communicated to her by his nephews. Such an intention is denied by Hatfield, who, however, related that he had been informed that his wife was with another man (J. E. Simms), and that he and others had searched for them. To repudiate the accusations of cruelties, Hatfield tells of his gifts to her in the form of luxurious clothing, expensive automobiles, and costly jewels, and Mrs. Hatfield admits she was the recipient of these generosities. Such conduct does not seem consonant with the wife's charges of cruelty. Likely Hatfield was not the gentle spouse, but it appears that some of the bickerings which occurred were prompted by accusations on the part of the wife. Hatfield's denial of the alleged acts of cruelty was sustained by the trial chancellor; and on conflicting testimony this court cannot say there is error in that conclusion.
Various imputations of immorality on the part of Hatfield are detailed by Mrs. Hatfield and others. She relates an incident in 1928 when she found her husband in bed with Virginia Pugh an occasion when she witnessed a kissing scene between her husband and Bessie Chafin, who, the wife imputes, figured in the sensual affairs of her husband as early as 1922; and she points to his association with Margaret Botney as a violation of his marital duty, and that, prior to her departure, his libertine practices had produced an illegitimate child. Another witness describes an incident where he found Hatfield, in his office, exercising familiarity with a Nelson girl whose clothing was pulled above her knees. Grant Walters, a brother of Mrs. Hatfield, in substantiating his sister's charge of infidelity against Hatfield, relates a conversation between him and Hatfield wherein the latter sought his aid in persuading Sadie Hatfield to spend several months of 1928 away from Logan, the reason assigned by Hatfield therefor being that Mollie White was "laying that baby she is going to have to me," and that his wife "will raise the devil and maybe knock Joe (brother of Hatfield and candidate for the nomination of sheriff) out of the nomination." There is substantial evidence that Tennis Hatfield was frequently seen, in his automobile, in company with Margaret Botney, a girl sixteen years of age, whose mother, of foreign birth, was the proprietress of a hotel visited frequently by Hatfield who claims his visitations were occasioned by politics and the campaign current in 1928. While one witness states that Margaret Botney and Hatfield did not remain in the lobby of the hotel with others, but that "they had a room like that, seemed like they met in," the same witness admits "the family would be in and out," and that, if he found the girl and Hatfield alone, they were sitting on chairs. There is evidence also that on one occasion Hatfield followed the girl into a room at the hotel, and that they remained therein for thirty or forty-five minutes. According to Hatfield, his acquaintance with Margaret Botney, prior to his wife's departure, was merely casual. It is not denied, however, that, following the separation of the litigants, Hatfield established the Botney girl in charge of his home and children. Both Hatfield and the girl deny any improprieties or illicit relationship. The evidence discloses correspondence purporting to have been written by Margaret Botney, but denied by her. One letter, written on stationery with a printed heading "Mrs. T. S. Hatfield, care of Logan County Jail, Logan, West Virginia," reads, in part: Sadie Hatfield testifies that she had never used stationery of the kind signed "Margaret." Another letter signed "Margaret," and addressed to "Miss Mary Stanley, Martin's Ferry, Ohio," relates the purchase of expensive clothing and attendance at "the reunion." It is difficult to ascertain from the testimony of Margarent Botney just how soon after Mrs. Hatfield's departure that she became employed by Hatfield; but it is clear that intermittently Margaret Botney would visit her mother in Ohio, each...
To continue reading
Request your trial