Lewis v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 01 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 35618.,35618. |
| Citation | 197 N.W. 907,197 Iowa 703 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Black Hawk County; Geo. W. Wood, Judge.
Suit for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. There was a decree for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.M. E. Geiser, of New Hampton, for appellant.
P. H. Paulsen, of Waterloo, for appellee.
[1] The parties hereto were married in January, 1916, each of them being 20 years of age. After a somewhat checkered married life and alternations of affection and hardness, they separated on December 9, 1919. The fruit of the marriage is a little girl born in June, 1919. The case turns wholly on questions of fact. The evidence is sharply contradictory at many points. The cruelty charged by the plaintiff culminated on the night of December 9, 1919. According to plaintiff's testimony the defendant was guilty of very brutal conduct, and inflicted severe injury upon the person of the plaintiff. He also fired a revolver in her presence, whether with intent to injure or with intent to frighten is not clear. The events of this night as well as those of some other occasions were recited by the plaintiff with specific circumstance and detail. Each and every detail thus testified to was categorically denied by the defendant. He denied specifically that he had ever owned a revolver or had ever had one in his house; whereas the plaintiff testified that he kept one usually and continually under his pillow when he slept. The contradictions in the testimony are of such nature as to require us to say that one party or the other knowingly testified falsely. Upon a study of the complete record we agree with the trial court that the weight of the evidence is with the plaintiff, and that the defendant has not been candid in his denial.
No good purpose can be served by a discussion of the details of the evidence, and we shall refrain therefrom. It is sufficient to sustain the decree for the plaintiff entered below. This decree awarded the custody of the child to the plaintiff. This was clearly proper.
[2] II. Appellant directs complaint against the allowance made for alimony. Neither of these young people had any property when they were married. Each of them was reasonably industrious, and each was engaged more or less of the time in earning wages. The defendant was a concrete worker, and at times earned as high as $7 per day. By industry and economy, and with the help of the parents of each, they acquired an incipient home, which was never completed, though for a time it was occupied by them. Much of the work was done by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial