Hickman v. Hickman
| Decision Date | 15 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 32940 |
| Citation | 176 N.W. 698,188 Iowa 697 |
| Parties | MARIE HICKMAN, Appellee, v. M. G. HICKMAN, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hardin District Court.--G. D. THOMPSON, Judge.
SUIT for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. There was a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Peisen & Soper, for appellant.
W. R Williams, for appellee.
The parties were married on January 22, 1914. The plaintiff was 18 years of age, and defendant 22. This suit was begun in August, 1917. Three children were born to the marriage. The plaintiff charged cruel treatment, endangering her life. The cruel treatment charged did not include personal violence. It did include harsh and profane language and threats, and much conduct indicating great disregard of the plaintiff's feelings. The plaintiff is a frail person, whereas the defendant appears to be a strong, vigorous man. With three babes coming into her arms in as many years, it is not difficult to believe that the plaintiff has seen weariness and suffering, and has needed the solace of a husband's affection. If she did, in fact, have such affection, it was not demonstrative. The testimony in her behalf tends to show that he frequently called her a "son-of-a-bitch;" that the same epithet, with additional embellishments, was applied to her parents; that he threatened to leave her; that he invited her to leave him; that he told her he was done with her; that he neglected her at child-birth, especially on the last two occasions; that he repeatedly and consistently denied the paternity of each of his children; that, in some instances, this was done before the child was born.
The defendant affected great hostility to plaintiff's parents, and forbade their visiting the home, though they were, at times, much needed there. On one occasion, he assaulted plaintiff's stepfather, without apparent cause. As a witness, he testified as to his reason for his hostility to the stepfather to the effect that his wife had informed him of improper conduct of the stepfather toward the plaintiff before she was married, and also at a time shortly prior to the birth of her second child. The plaintiff denied that she ever gave such information to the defendant, and testified that there was no truth in such a charge. We think her denial in this regard should be taken as true.
The defendant denied all of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff tending to show the cruel conduct. He also testified that their marriage relations had, as he supposed, been pleasant, and marred only by the hostility of plaintiff's parents. It is quite clear from the record, however, that, in the year 1916, he was secretly consulting an attorney, with reference to his marriage relations; also, that he was carrying on an affectionate correspondence with a former sweetheart. He has undoubtedly given a false reason for his admitted hostility to the plaintiff's parents.
That the defendant's conduct has operated heavily upon the health of the plaintiff, and that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial