Jones v. Jones

• Decision Date: 30 June 1914
• Docket Number: 573
• Citation: 66 So. 4,189 Ala. 286
• Parties: JONES v. JONES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

66 So. 4

189 Ala. 286

JONES v. JONES.

No. 573

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1914

Appeal from Shelby County Court; E.S. Lyman, Judge.

Bill by Mary Jones against J.W. Jones for absolute divorce on the grounds of cruelty. From a decree for complainant and dismissing respondent's cross-bill; respondent appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed and rendered in part.

The respondent denied the cruelty and filed a plea alleging the invalidity of his marriage with complainant because of the existence of a living husband of a former marriage, and by cross-bill prayed for a decree annulling his alleged marriage with complainant.

Kidd &amp Darden, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Riddle & Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

There are three main issues of fact as to all of which the chancellor found adversely to the appellant: (1) Did the complainant, Mrs. Jones, have a legal living husband by a former marriage at the time she married the respondent, thus invalidating the marriage here sought to be dissolved? (2) If not, has the respondent been guilty of the marital cruelty charged by the complainant? (3) If so, was there such bad conduct and bad faith on the part of the complainant herself as to outlaw her complaint in a court of equity and conscience?

Without the aid of any presumption of law from the long absence of complainant's alleged former husband, and without reference to the hearsay evidence of W.M. Ridgeway, we are reasonably convinced that E. Bennett Ridgeway and Edward Ridgeway were one and the same person; that he had a living wife when he married complainant in 1887; and that he died before complainant married respondent in 1906. These conclusions are founded largely on hearsay evidence, but this evidence was offered by respondent himself through his witnesses Mary Jones, James Cooley, and H.H. O'Shields. Other testimony as to the conduct and movements of Ridgeway also confirms the finding of the chancellor on this issue with which we fully concur.

On the issue of respondent's alleged cruelty, the evidence which is conflicting and for the most part biased, is not convincing and affords no satisfactory conclusion. On her own showing her matrimonial record is not creditable; and according to the great weight of the evidence her social disposition is extremely bad and her attitude towards her husband before their separation was contemptuous and hostile. Furthermore her credibility...