Lejeune v. Lejeune
| Decision Date | 26 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 34234 |
| Citation | 174 So. 643,187 La. 339 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEJEUNE v. LEJEUNE |
Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson Davis; Thomas F. Porter, Judge.
Action for divorce by Nebert Lejeune against Mrs. Bertha O. Lejeune. From a judgment refusing the divorce, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Plauche & Stockwell, of Lake Charles, for appellant.
Williams & Vidrine, for appellee.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands for a divorce. May 8, 1936, the defendant committed Plaintiff in his petition, alleges that on adultery with a man named George Miller. The defendant, in her answer, denied the illicit act and averred that it was a crude attempt on the part of the plaintiff to manufacture evidence to secure a divorce.
The case was tried and submitted. The lower court rendered judgment rejecting plaintiff's demand, from which judgment plaintiff appealed to this court.
The only question presented in the case is the veracity between the plaintiff and his witnesses on the one side and the defendant and her witnesses on the other side.
In this case three witnesses testified to the illicit act, viz plaintiff, the co-respondent, and one other witness.
The co-respondent, plaintiff's first cousin, was working for the plaintiff at the time of the alleged illicit act. It is rather unusual for a plaintiff to use a co-respondent as his witness to prove the illicit act. If plaintiff's allegation is true, we are at a loss to see how he could prove this fact by the very person whom he alleges disrupted his home. It is indeed unusual that he would be on such friendly terms as to have the co-respondent testify to the illicit act and that the co-respondent would testify to his own wrongdoing in behalf of the plaintiff. From this very fact, it would appear that there is foundation to defendant's claim that the testimony was manufactured.
The plaintiff's action in using the co-respondent as a witness causes his, the plaintiff's, testimony to be looked upon with suspicion.
The other witness who testified to the illicit act was impeached by the town marshal, who testified that this witness's repution was bad, that he was no good and could not be believed on oath.
Plaintiff's father and mother testified that the defendant said that "she did wrong." The statement testified to was a general statement which did not recite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
... ... Fontenot, 1930, 170 La. 345, 127 So. 746; Kruse v. Kruse, 1932, 175 La. 206, 143 So. 50; Wagner v. Shannon, 1934, 180 La. 233, 156 So. 289; Lejeune v. Lejeune, 1937, 187 La. 339, 174 So. 643; Falgout v. Johnson, 1939, 191 La. 823, 186 So. 349; Thornton v. Ellington, 1946, 209 La. 613, 25 So.2d ... ...
-
Hatten v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.
...error in the judgment. Thornton v. Ellington, 209 La. 613, 25 So.2d 282; Falgout v. Johnson, 191 La. 823, 186 So. 349; Lejeune v. Lejeune, 187 La. 339, 174 So. 643; Wagner v. Shannon, 180 La. 233, 156 So. 289; Kruse v. Kruse, 175 La. 206, 143 So. 50; Guillory v. Fontenot, 170 La. 345, 127 S......
-
Pearson v. Taylor, 9134
... ... Thornton v. Ellington, 209 La. 613, 25 So.2d 282; Falgout v. Johnson, 191 La. 823, 186 So. 349; Lejeune v. Lejeune, 187 La. 339, 174 So. 643; Wagner v. Shannon, 180 La. 233, 156 So. 289; Kruse v. Kruse, 175 La. 206, 143 So. 50; Guillory v. Fontenot, 170 ... ...
-
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Morris
... ... Thornton v. Ellington, 209 La. 613, 25 So.2d 282; Falgout v. Johnson, 191 La. 823, 186 So. 349; Lejeune v. Lejeune, 187 La. 339, 174 So. 643; Wagner v. Shannon, 180 La. 233, 156 So. 289; Kruse v. Kruse, 175 La. 206, 143 So. 50; Guillory v. Fontenot, 170 ... ...