Heiser v. Heiser

• Citation: 220 P. 761,127 Wash. 186
• Decision Date: 16 November 1923
• Docket Number: 18100.
• Parties: HEISER v. HEISER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

220 P. 761

127 Wash. 186

HEISER v. HEISER.

No. 18100.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 16, 1923

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Clifford, Judge.

Action by Louis E. Heiser against Margaret Heiser. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Rickabaugh & McElroy, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Gordon & Nolte, of Tacoma, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

This is an action for divorce, brought by the husband against the wife. The charge in the complaint of the husband was cruel treatment and personal indignities, rendering life burdensome. The prayer was for an absolute divorce. The wife answering the complaint, denied the allegations of cruelty, and, by an affirmative answer and cross-complaint, charged the husband with habitual drunkenness, extending over a period of some four years alleging that the husband had squandered most of his earnings during that period in drink and riotous living, and that he had made it impossible for her to live longer with him as his wife. The prayer was for separate maintenance.

The trial court, at the conclusion of the hearing had on the issues made by the pleadings, found that the wife had been guilty of cruelty toward the husband, found that she had failed to substantiate the allegations of her cross-complaint, and, after making appropriate conclusions of law based upon the findings, entered an interlocutory decree of divorce pursuant to the requirements of the Code. Rem. Comp. Stat. § 988. In this decree, however, he awarded to the wife all of the community property of the parties, estimated to be of the value of $800, and directed that the husband pay to the wife $10 per week as for alimony and support. From the decree the wife appeals.

It is the appellant's contention that the evidence does not justify that part of the decree awarding to the respondent a divorce. But we are inclined to adopt the view of the trial court. The marital troubles of the parties began shortly after they entered into the marriage relation. These grew worse as the years advanced, until they culminated in a separation, and even the appellant now declares that there is no hope of a reconciliation. For this unhappy termination each of the parties blames the other. The respondent testifies that the appellant has an ungovernable temper, causing her to fall into frequent fits of rage, in which she has little control either of her acts or of her tongue. He mentions one instance in which she assaulted him with a piece of tableware when they were dining with others and testifies generally that...