Hogsett v. Hogsett

• Citation: 186 S.W. 1171
• Decision Date: 22 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 11986.,11986.
• Parties: HOGSETT v. HOGSETT.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

186 S.W. 1171

HOGSETT v. HOGSETT.

No. 11986.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 22, 1916.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vernon County; B. G. Thurmond, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action for divorce by W. J. Hogsett against Martha A. Hogsett. From a judgment for plaintiff granting him a divorce, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Chas. E. Gilbert, of Nevada, Mo., for appellant. W. M. Bowker and D. M. Gibson, both of Nevada, Mo., for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

This is an action for divorce begun on April 8, 1915, in the circuit court of Vernon county. The parties were married in 1882 and lived together on a farm owned by plaintiff until 1912, when they separated. They reared six children, the eldest being 33 years old, and the youngest 18 at the time of the trial, which occurred in May, 1915. The family living on the farm in June, 1912, consisted of the father and mother and the youngest two children—Henry then about 18 years old, and Jennie, who was 15. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered indignities from defendant of a nature to entitle him to a divorce.

The charges are that defendant "ran the plaintiff out of his said home and has refused to permit him to enter therein, * * *" that "defendant has threatened and abused him and locked the doors of his said house against him and ordered him off from his own farm, * * *" that "defendant has, during the last 18 months, been continuously in the habit of talking disrespectfully about the plaintiff to his neighbors and friends, and has put up and instigated the grown son of this plaintiff, and defendant to assault this plaintiff, and that on one occasion said son did assault this plaintiff, striking him and seriously injuring him," that "when plaintiff has gone to his farm on several occasions she has instigated her said son to take a gun and go out on the premises and threaten this plaintiff, and that in 1914 she filed a suit for divorce against this plaintiff charging him with all manner of scandalous things and then dismissed the same."

Defendant filed an answer alleging facts tending to show that during the last 10 years of their cohabitation plaintiff offered her many serious indignities, struck her, threatened to kill her, that in June, 1912, he deserted her, leaving her and their two minor children on the farm, and that afterward he refused not only to provide her and the children with proper support and maintenance, but deprived them of the means of making a livelihood by removing from the farm all of the live stock and farming tools and implements. She filed no cross-petition, and is not seeking a divorce in this action.

During the trial counsel for plaintiff offered "to pay to the clerk of this court, to be subject to the orders of this court, $2,000, to be paid to Mrs. Hogsett, the defendant in this case, subject to the directions of the court." The record does not disclose any judicial disposition of this offer or that the money was paid to the clerk for the benefit of defendant. The court, after hearing the evidence, took the case under advisement, and afterward rendered judgment for plaintiff granting him a divorce, but taxing the costs against him. Defendant appealed.

When the parties were married, plaintiff owned a farm of 80 acres in Vernon county, 4½ miles from Nevada, on which they made their home. They were industrious, honest, and frugal, and by their joint efforts were enabled in time to buy an adjoining tract of 80 acres and add it to their homestead. Both were in good repute in the community, both were high-tempered, and, while they quarreled occasionally, they lived together 30 years and reared their children. Their quarrels were short-lived, but of violent character and marked by abusive language, but there is no satisfactory proof that either offered physical violence towards the other. Such was the status of their marital relationship in June, 1912, when plaintiff left the farm and went to Nevada to live. He had attended to putting in and cultivating the crops for that season, and he states that he left, not with the intention of deserting his family, but to look after the improvement of some real property he owned in Nevada. The charge in the petition that defendant and the children compelled him to leave the farm has no evidentiary support. Plaintiff himself testified:

"I don't think I have left home yet; I have got property here [Nevada] and there too, and I was attending to both ends of the places, doing the best I could for all interested, until they pushed me off and refused to do anything. Q. Who told you to leave that farm? A. I came here to improve this property. Q. Didn't anybody tell you to leave that farm? A. No; I didn't leave it yet."

The farm was well stocked when plaintiff left, but from time to time he took away the work animals, farming implements, and milch cows, and disposed of them, keeping...