Latham v. Latham

• Decision Date: 19 May 1926
• Docket Number: No. 6193.,6193.
• Citation: 133 A. 241
• Parties: LATHAM v. LATHAM.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

133 A. 241

LATHAM

v. LATHAM.

No. 6193.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 19, 1926.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Hugh B. Baker, Judge.

Petition for divorce by Hilda B. Latham against Charles O. Latham. Petition was denied, and petitioner brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remanded.

Huddy & Moulton, of Providence, for petitioner.

Pettine, Godfrey & Cambio, of Providence, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The case is before us on exceptions to the decision of the superior court denying petitioner's prayer for a divorce sought on the ground of extreme cruelty.

In addition to excepting to the decision, petitioner excepted to the refusal of the trial court to permit Dr. Forrest to answer a question asked of him, not as an expert, but as an ordinary fact witness. While the question appears in fragmentary form in the transcript, by reason of interruptions and discussions, it was evidently hypothetical in its nature and called for an opinion. As a rule opinion evidence or conclusions relative to the facts in evidence are not admissible from nonexpert witnesses. Flint Motor Car Co. v. Everson, 34 R. I. 65, 82 A. 726; Warren v. Warren, 33 R. I. 71, 80 A. 593. The same rule applies where a hearing is before the court as when it is before a jury, although the danger of the court's being misled is not as great as that of the jury. 22 C. J. § 591, p. 492. The trial justice properly excluded the question.

The trial justice declined to find the alleged acts of physical cruelty established. In any event he thought them probably condoned. We see no reason to disagree.

Petitioner's case chiefly was based in the lower court, and also here argued, on alleged persistent and malicious acts and speech which caused her mental anguish and impaired health. Grant v. Grant, 44 R. I. 172, 116 A. 481; Borda v. Borda, 44 R. I. 337, 117 A. 362. The impairment of health was not such as to necessitate the attendance of a doctor. It consisted of nervousness and indigestion.

In neither of the above cases did this court intimate that incompatibility of temperament was extreme cruelty constituting a ground for divorce. The picture presented in the present case is one of increasing incompatibility, starting almost immediately after marriage. The husband, in spite of many obvious good qualities, had certain vulgar crudities of speech and behavior of which the wife, with a more sensitive nature, grew increasingly ashamed when they were...