Haymond v. Haymond

• Decision Date: 21 June 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 90
• Parties: HAYMOND <I>v.</I> HAYMOND.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 90

HAYMOND

v. HAYMOND.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 21, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Bell county.

Action by B. W. Haymond against Ada Haymond for divorce, and custody of their three children, commenced in October, 1887. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. After notice of appeal given, plaintiff moved for the custody of the children, pending the appeal, and the motion was granted.

Monteith & Furman and Frank Andrews, for appellant. James Boyd, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

B. W. Haymond instituted this suit against his wife for divorce and for the custody of their three children. Plaintiff alleged that he was married to defendant in the year 1873; "that in January, 1879, there crept into his home a destroyer that lodged in the bosom of his family and poisoned the atmosphere of his once happy home, blighted his life, alienated his wife's affections, estranged his children, and made desolate all that was once happy and comfortable." He alleged that "this destroyer was a band of religious fanatics, calling themselves `Sanctificationists,' composed chiefly of women who congregate at private houses and other places, and relate to each other the divine revelations communicated to them, which they interpret to suit their own views and then blindly follow in their business and domestic relations; that Martha McWhirter, the mother of defendant, is the head of this sect, and seems to have the benefit of more revelations than all the others, and her interpretations thereof are law to her followers." Plaintiff further charges that "this band teach and enforce the doctrine that it is sinful for a wife, who is a member, to live with a husband who does not believe the doctrine; that such a husband is a serpent in the house, and the wife should separate and depart from him." He alleges that "in 1879 his wife joined this band at the solicitation of her mother, and during his temporary absence permitted the band to hold its meetings in his house, and encouraged them to instill into the minds of his children their accursed doctrines; that, influenced by her mother, who taught her it was a sin to live with him, defendant withdrew herself from plaintiff's bed and board in January, 1879, and occupied a room and bed in another part of the house, and has ever since remained absent from his bed and board; that said Martha McWhirter has induced other wives to refuse to live with unbelieving husbands; that plaintiff in 1883 sent his children a barrel of oranges, which his mother-in-law destroyed because he was an unbeliever; that plaintiff was absent from the state from October, 1881, until December, 1885. In 1883 he wrote to his wife from Central America, expressing a desire to forget the past, and blot it out of their lives, if she would go to him with their children and remain until he was able to return to Texas, offering to send her money to pay her expenses. Defendant refused, saying she would not leave the sanctified band for any man, and that money would be no inducement to her to live with him. He charges that on his return home in 1885 he was very sick, and needed care and attention, which he received from strangers, but not from his wife, who, knowing his condition, did not visit or send his children to see him, and that after his recovery in January, 1886, still desiring to reunite his family, and separate them from the Sanctificationists and intermeddlers, he sought his wife and besought her to go with him and reunite their family and forget and forgive the past, in reply to which she said she would consult her mother and find what revelation would be made on the subject. Plaintiff alleges that, not hearing from his wife, he wrote her at the end of several days, repeating his request, to which she replied that she could not consistently with her faith live with him because he was an unbeliever. He alleges that with the consent of his wife her mother has taken complete control of their children, and hires them out to do menial work, receiving the money for their services, and refusing to send them to school, and that Martha McWhirter is the proprietress of the Central Hotel, where she has kept plaintiff's wife and children, and has knowingly permitted public prostitutes to board and lodge as her guests, thus associating his children with them. Plaintiff charges that in consequence of said express and cruel treatment his living with defendant is insupportable, and he prays for a divorce for that reason, and because of defendant's voluntary abandonment of him for the period of three years and more prior to the filing of his petition. Defendant excepts to so much of the petition as relates to her religious belief and that of her mother, and denies all and singular its allegations. She specially denies that plaintiff's residence is in Texas, and charges that he is a resident of British Honduras, and that instead of her leaving him plaintiff abandoned her. She alleges that he was habitually cross to her, and on one occasion violently assaulted her, and circulated false charges against her character. She charges that from 1881 to 1885, while he was in Central America, he left her no provision for the support of herself and children, and that she furnished such support by her own efforts, and in 1885 he deprived her of the rents of their home. She charges that plaintiff remained in Central America until 1887, when he returned to Belton, and forcibly and fraudulently carried away her son, whom she had supported for the previous seven years without his assistance. She says her children are attached to and prefer to remain with her, and that she is able to care for and support them, and that plaintiff, if he obtains control of them, will remove them to some foreign country.

Plaintiff introduced the depositions of Mrs. Martha McWhirter, by whom he proved that perfect harmony never existed between him and his wife, though they were sometimes pleasant to each other. She testified that her faith does not teach that it is sinful for a believing wife to live with an unbelieving husband as his wife, if they were already married when the wife became sanctified; that the faith of the Sanctificationists teaches them to be good and obedient wives and mothers, and to discharge their duties perfectly as such, and teaches that if a husband chooses to leave his wife on account of her religion she should let him go. She testified that plaintiff and his wife did not live together from January, 1879, to February, 1881, and that plaintiff "was always more or less disagreeable in his family;" that disagreements continued between them until they finally separated, when plaintiff endeavored to eject his wife by force from their house, but he failed to eject her, and afterwards left her of his own accord; that they differed about business matters as well as religious, and that some meetings of the band were held in the residence of plaintiff by invitation of his wife. She testified that a half barrel of oranges came to defendant, but, not knowing who sent them, she withheld the oranges because she did not believe in accepting gifts from an unknown source, and that when plaintiff was sick in 1885 friendly relations did not exist between him and his wife, and she did not visit him. She testified that in the early part of 1886 plaintiff requested his wife to live with him again, but she declined, because she desired to live in peace, and was fully convinced that there would be none in the "same house with Ben Haymond. We both concluded she had better not go with him for that reason." She testified that in 1883 or 1884 plain...