Hoecker v. Hoecker

• Citation: 222 S.W. 387
• Decision Date: 04 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 20854.,20854.
• Parties: HOECKER v. HOECKER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

222 S.W. 387

HOECKER v. HOECKER.

No. 20854.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 4, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Clarence A. Burney, Judge.

Suit by Catherine Hoecker against Joseph Hoecker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The circuit court of Jackson county granted plaintiff a divorce from the defendant, and awarded her the sum of $20,000 alimony in gross and also allowed her an additional $1,000 as attorney fee. From this judgment defendant duly perfected an appeal to this court.

At the time of the trial the plaintiff was 62 years of age and the appellant was 69 years of age. These parties were first married in 1872, and for many years conducted a restaurant and saloon. The plaintiff did all the cooking for the restaurant, and otherwise aided in laying the foundation for some of the savings now held by the defendant. They did not own much property when they were first married, but it appears that after conducting the aforesaid business for a number of years they were able to purchase a farm in Miller county, upon which they mover and resided together until about 1901. Six children were born of this marriage. Four children are now living, two sons and two daughters. The youngest is 21 and the oldest 44 years of age.

A disagreement occurred in 1901, and they separated. The two daughters, then aged respectively 5 and 15 years, left the farm in company with their mother. Shortly thereafter the older girl married, and the plaintiff resided with her for some time. After the first separation, plaintiff lived in Kansas for a while, and also in Arkansas, and finally, in 1914, came back to Miller county to live. After the first separation, the appellant procured a divorce from his wife, presumably upon service by publication. She testified that she knew nothing about it at the time. Shortly after the plaintiff returned to Miller county, and on March 27, 1914, she married appellant for the second time. After the second marriage they lived on the farm in Miller county until about July 15, 1915, at which time a quarrel ensued, and they again became separated. On that day the plaintiff, together with her daughter Margeret, then 20 years of age, left the home of appellant, and later moved to Kansas City. The plaintiff testified that appellant had a bad temper; that he often became intoxicated, and when in an) intoxicated condition he would curse and abuse her, and at one time struck her.

On the day of the separation plaintiff states that she told her daughter Margeret not to go out in the wet woods after the cows, and not to milk them unless they were up; that at this appellant made the remark, "If you don't want to milk these cows right, don't milk them at all," and began quarreling. The daughter and Sam Poor, son-in-law of the parties, left the house for the purpose of milking the cows. After they had gone, appellant continued to quarrel, and tried to hit plaintiff on the head with a chair. She threw up her arm, and received the blow on the arm. Appellant ordered the plaintiff to go, and she refused, and he told her that, if she didn't, "they will carry you out"; that appellant then went out to the pasture, where the daughter and son-in-law were milking, and turned the cows and calves together.

Thereafter appellant and Sam Poor returned to the house, and were in one of the rooms settling up a financial matter between themselves, when plaintiff came to the door, which was fastened by an old-fashioned button on the inside. The son-in-law arose and opened the door, so she could enter. When plaintiff entered the room, defendant jumped up and put his hand on a chair, as if he were going to attack the plaintiff, and swore at her. The daughter came in between them and said, "Dad, you can't strike mother when I am here." Plaintiff further states that at other times appellant cursed her and called her "A g____ d____ whore, a g____ d____ son of a bitch, a thief, and a liar," and said that he had kept his money locked up to keep her from stealing it. During the quarrel on the day of the separation, plaintiff says that appellant said, "To-morrow I will go to town, and when I come back, if you are here, something will happen that people will read about." Appellant told his son to take plaintiff away, and that she went to her son's house and stayed for three weeks, and saw appellant every day, but that he never spoke to her. She further says that appellant failed to provide for her, and that she did not have a pair of shoes when she left his home; that he dared her to make a store bill, and said that "if I did I would have to leave that part of the state."

The daughter Margeret corroborated the testimony of her mother, except that she did not see her father strike her mother, but that she did see a mark or bruised place across her mother's arm after the trouble. Mrs. Elizabeth Poor, another daughter, did not see or hear the difficulty, but afterwards saw the mark on her mother's arm.

A Mr. Bunch, who lived in that neighborhood, states that about the day of the separation he was on the outside of appellant's house, and that he heard loud talking; that he knew appellant's voice, and that he was talking very loud and angry, and quarreling with plaintiff and her daughter. A Miss Barton, who lived in the same neighborhood, testified that she frequently heard appellant and his wife quarreling, and at one time she heard appellant call plaintiff "a d____ old whore," and...