Hecht v. Hecht
| Decision Date | 27 July 1959 |
| Citation | 342 P.2d 360,172 Cal.App.2d 381 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Gertrude HECHT, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. Fred HECHT, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent. Civ. 5900. |
Schall & Fitzwater and Maurice Boudreau, San Diego, for appellant.
Ralph W. Graves, El Cajon, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment granting a divorce. The action was commenced by plaintiff Gertude Hecht by filing a complaint for separate maintenance. The defendant Fred Hecht answered and filed a cross-complaint in which he alleged extreme cruelty and desertion as causes of action for divorce. The trial court rendered judgment granting a divorce to him on his cross-complaint and Gertrude Hecht appeals from the judgment. The sole question presented on appeal is whether there was sufficient corroborating evidence presented to support the judgment.
The parties were married in New York City, New York, on October 1, 1928 and separated on July 7, 1953. Respondent moved to San Diego, California, and was living in that county on or about July 12, 1956, when appellant came to San Diego. She was found by the police on Garnet Street in that city 'screaming at the top of her voice and stating that if she couldn't stay with her husband, she would kill herself.' She was hospitalized and a few days alter filed her action for separate maintenance.
Respondent testified that while they were living in New York City in an apartment appellant's conduct was such that it was impossible for him to continue to live with her; that she kept their apartment in a 'horrible state'; that she refused to throw out refuse and garbage; that she kept calling him up at his work, constantly interfering with it and annoying him; that she locked the doors to their apartment, disconnected the bell, and would not let anyone in because of the condition of the apartment; that she kept rotting, wormy and odorous food in the ice box; and that no one came to their home because it was so filthy.
Bertha Jindrat, who was called as a corroborating witness, testified that respondent had lived in San Diego county for two years continuously preceding the trial date; that she knew respondent in New York; that he was 'terribly overwrought many times'; that he was always 'disturbed by this condition'.
The trial court then questioned appellant as to her conduct when arriving in San Diego and as to the contents of a police report which was submitted to the court for consideration. The trial was then continued to permit the taking of depositions to corroborate respondent's testimony and on April 15, 1958, when trial was resumed, interrogatories and answers thereto were filed by respondent and considered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy
...not necessary that every instance charged be corroborated, Williams v. Williams, 86 Ariz. 201, 344 P.2d 161 (1959); Hecht v. Hecht, 172 Cal.App.2d 381, 342 P.2d 360 (1959). Corroboration need not be confirmation. It is necessary only that the testimony of the complaining part be supported a......
- People v. Grayson, Cr. 2895
-
Bratovich v. Bratovich
...to show circumstantially the truth of facts testified to by respondent and admitted on cross-examination by appellant. Hecht v. Hecht, 172 Cal.App.2d 381, 342 P.2d 360; Waltz v. Waltz, 150 Cal.App.2d 731, 310 P.2d 695; Steele v. Steele, 132 Cal.App.2d 301, 282 P.2d 171; Dowd v. Dowd, 111 Ca......
-
LeVanseler v. LeVanseler
...corroboration is required, and the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence rests largely with the trial court. (Hecht v. Hecht, 172 Cal.App.2d 381-383, 342 P.2d 360; Ruggles v. Ruggles, 43 Cal.2d 547, 275 P.2d 42; Bush v. Bush, 72 Cal.App.2d 487, 164 P.2d 774; Price v. Price, 71 Cal.App.2......