Jennings v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 19 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 31587,31587 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Conrad D. JENNINGS, (Plaintiff) Respondent, v. Ruth Constance JENNINGS, (Defendant) Appellant. |
Charles A. Sheehan, House Springs, for appellant.
Thurman, Nixon & Smith, John W. Thurman, Jeremiah Nixon, Hillsboro, for respondent.
This appeal resulted from a judgment granting the plaintiff-husband a divorce and custody of the infant daughter.
The parties were married December 5, 1942, and lived together as husband and wife until the separation on July 29, 1962. A daughter was born to this marriage on July 18, 1958, approximately fifteen years and five months after the date of the marriage. On the date of separation plaintiff took the child with him, and filed his petition July 30, 1962.
Defendant filed answer and pleading denominated 'Cross-Bill', in which she prayed the court for a judgment of divorce against the plaintiff and for custody of the aforesaid infant child.
Plaintiff testified that the first difficulty with the marriage occurred some ten years before the trial, upon the occasion of a dinner party, at which affair one Johnny Bailey, a teacher of the high school, was a guest. After dinner, and a few drinks afterwards, Bailey started to go to the bathroom, and the defendant followed him in spite of plaintiff's calling to her to come back. Plaintiff remained alone with other guests upstairs, and eventually the defendant came back.
Some time after the parties moved to House Springs, Missouri, they established a charge account at a local store and at the end of each month plaintiff would settle the bill. Plaintiff testified that defendant would run back and forth to the windows, look toward the store, and say, 'Yeah, you old baldy, I can get somebody better than you!' Defendant also said at other times she could get somebody better than plaintiff any day she wanted to.
Defendant accused plaintiff of not mailing letters to her relatives for her, and constantly accused plaintiff of running around with other women.
It appeared that plaintiff in his capacity as a high school biology teacher also had the task of being ticket-taker at the basketball games and other duties around the school that required many nights away from home, and when plaintiff would come home from these occasions defendant would accuse plaintiff of running around with a girl friend, which accusation plaintiff denied.
Upon another occasion plaintiff was engaged at home in studying and preparing grades. Defendant started dropping china cups and saucers, one at a time, on the floor, breaking almost the entire set of china. Plaintiff admitted that defendant had been a clean housekeeper, but during the last two or three years she was not, which condition he attributed to the fact that she spent so much time chasing after the little girl that she didn't have time to keep the house clean.
The testimony of plaintiff set forth that about the time the little girl was born he bought a new rug, and defendant would give the child cookies and milk and set her in front of the television and let the baby wet all over the rug, which condition became so acute that the plaintiff and a neighbor took the rug out to the garage and scrubbed it and let it air for two days, and replaced it in the home, whereupon the rug still smelled, after which it was necessary to throw it away. A new rug was purchased a year before the hearing, and plaintiff claims to be the only one who ever vacuumed it. He claimed that the closets had not been cleaned in three years, the utility room was full of junk, and that defendant would let his shirts stack up until mildewed.
About three years before the separation plaintiff had a summer job at the Missouri Pacific Hospital. Required to arise about 5:30 a. m., plaintiff testified that defendant would awaken him by spitting in his face, and upon a later repeat of this procedure in the process of awakening, he swung and missed her, hit the wall and broke his finger, and that defendant always griped because she had to get him up to go to this early work, and because of her opposition he was tardy on four occasions and lost the job. Defendant's excuse to plaintiff was that she did not want to awaken the child.
Plaintiff further claimed that defendant made sexual demands upon him at times when he had final examinations and report cards to put out or had to work late for a test the next day. At such times plaintiff testified that defendant would jump out of bed and inquire if he was coming to bed, and after his reminder to her that he was required to get the tests ready, she would state,
Plaintiff testified that the child was never permitted on the floor to crawl, and never learned to crawl; that defendant was afraid the child might catch cold, get dirt on her hands, and that she was kept in a playpen until she was almost two years of age; that defendant constantly ran after the child and would take toys away from her, being afraid that they might pinch her. Upon one occasion plaintiff brought the child a toy upon which the child cut her thumb, and the defendant accused plaintiff of buying the toy with the plan of cutting the child's hand.
Plaintiff further testified that at the age of three the child could not put on her pants or socks; that defendant was over-protective of the child; fed her baby food until she was three years old; never permitted her to play with other children; that upon one occasion defendant requested plaintiff to take the child to the doctor because the child 'must be crazy or something' since the child had played out in the yard in the hot sun for three hours.
Upon another occasion plaintiff was reading some stories to the child, lying on the child's bed with her. Defendant came into the room and accused plaintiff, in front of the child, of trying to rape the child.
Defendant further refused to allow the child to have a birthday party when she was five, or to bake a cake, because defendant did not want little brats in the house.
While on the way back home on one occasion, the child wanted to stop by the little cousin's house; and upon defendant's refusal the child cried during the 54-mile drive home, pleading with her parents, and at one point threw her arm around the plaintiff's neck and asked him, This precipitated the separation.
Charles Clements, the former teacher colleague of plaintiff in the House Springs school district, testified that plaintiff and the child came to live with them at the time of the separation for about one or two weeks, at which time he observed that the child could not go to the bathroom without aid or take a bath by herself, and that she wanted to eat nothing but sweets; that during that time there was some improvement, and that later he had an opportunity to observe the child and that she now goes to the bathroom alone and takes her own bath, and dresses herself.
Mrs. Carl Strieder testified that plaintiff and his daughter have been living in her home since the first of August following the separation and that when the child came to live in her house she was unable to go to the bathroom herself, unable to undress herself or dress herself and would eat nothing but sweets; and that after five months the child never asked for cookies or sweets except after meals, was able to dress herself and undress herself, go to the bathroom, and has learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M--- L--- v. M--- R---
...402 S.W.2d 612, 615 (4, 5); Wood v. Wood, Mo.App., 400 S.W.2d 431; Jaros v. Jaros, Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 217, 220(5); Jennings v. Jennings, Mo.App., 379 S.W.2d 159, 162--163; Derringer v. Derringer Mo.App., 377 S.W.2d 513; Crowley v. Crowley, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 293, 297(7, 8); C_ _ v. B_ _, ......
-
Roberts v. Progressive Northwestern Ins.
...State v. Hulsey, 557 S.W.2d 715, 716-17 (Mo.App.1977); Beasley v. Hull, 400 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Mo.App.1966); Jennings v. Jennings, 379 S.W.2d 159, 163 (Mo.App.1964). Second, the point fails to state the legal reason for the claim of reversible error: that such testimony was inadmissible hears......
-
City of St. Louis v. Cook
...of evidence is insufficient under Supreme Court Rule 83.05(e), V.A.M.R., to present such question here for review. Jennings v. Jennings, Mo.App., 379 S.W.2d 159. Nor is the failure to comply with the rule cured by discussion and references to the transcript contained solely in the argument.......
-
Herrman Lumber Co. v. Cox
...refusing to sustain the motion for a new trial.' This point preserves nothing for review. Rule 84.04(d) V.A.M.R.; Jennings v. Jennings, 379 S.W.2d 159, 163(6) (Mo.App.1964) ; Thigpen v. Dodd's Truck Lines, Inc., 498 S.W.2d 816, 818(5, 6) (Mo.App.1973). The documentary evidence, to which the......