Macomber v. Macomber
| Decision Date | 23 June 1913 |
| Citation | 87 A. 170,35 R.I. 372 |
| Parties | MACOMBER v. MACOMBER. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; George T. Brown, Judge.
Petition for divorce by Ruth S. Macomber against Lorenzo D. Macomber. Petitioner was granted a divorce from bed and board, and defendant excepted. Exceptions sustained, and new trial awarded.
Curtis & Ball, of Providence, for petitioner.
Flynn & Mahoney, of Providence, for respondent.
This is a petition for divorce from bed and board on the grounds of extreme cruelty and of neglect to provide. The petition was heard and granted January 24, 1913, on the ground of neglect to provide only. To that decision the respondent excepted, and the case is now before us on his bill of exceptions to such decision.
The justice presiding at the trial, in granting the petition, said: This statement of the law is erroneous. There is no law or rule of evidence in this jurisdiction requiring proof of a different degree or character to uphold petitions for divorce, whether they be for absolute divorce or for divorce from bed and board. The decision of the justice above referred to, therefore, does not carry with it the persuasive influence and weight which it otherwise would have. The testimony in this case as to the allegation of neglect to provide is conflicting, but that furnished by the petitioner, taken by itself, covers so limited a period, and is so general and indefinite in character, as not only to render the characterization of it as "weak" proper, but also to give it no preponderating weight over the testimony offered by the respondent.
The exception of the respondent, therefore, is sustained, and the case is remitted to the superior court for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. Schultz
...Rules governing the weight and admissibility of evidence are the rules of the civil court. Collenti v. Tranchina 91 So. 818; Macomber v. Macomber (R. I.) 87 A. 170; Lamb Lamb (Va.) 101 S.E. 223. All intendments are in favor of the decree as rendered. Jarrard v. Jarrard (Wash.) 198 P. 741. T......
-
Parker v. Parker
...to himself. Browning v. Browning, 89 R.I. 415, 153 A.2d 146; Lannon v. Lannon, 86 R.I. 451, 136 A.2d 608. Long ago in Macomber v. Macomber, 35 R.I. 372, 87 A. 170, we declared the same degree of proof must be satisfied by a petitioner seeking a divorce from bed and board as that which is ne......
- Adamkiewicz v. Zajac