Mason v. Mason
| Decision Date | 04 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 5887.,5887. |
| Citation | 124 A. 730 |
| Parties | MASON v. MASON. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Chester W. Barrows, Judge.
Suit by Bessie M. Mason against Herbert J. Mason. Decree for petitioner, and respondent excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted.
Fitzgerald & Higgins and Edward T. Hogan, all of Providence, for petitioner.
Flynn & Mahoney, of Providence, for respondent.
This case comes before the court upon the respondent's exceptions to the decision of a justice of the superior court granting the petitioner an absolute divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, giving her the custody of their five minor children and awarding alimony. The exceptions are that the decision is contrary to the law and the evidence and the weight thereof.
The testimony shows that after filing her petition for divorce March 6, 1923, the parties met by accident May 30, 1923, and became reconciled and resumed marital cohabitation, The reconciliation lasted only a few hours. The petitioner testified that as they were about to separate for the night, the respondent used such abusive language to her that she decided that she would have nothing further to do with him, and that, she would press her petition for divorce. June 11, 1923, the respondent wrote a letter to his wife which was vulgar, abusive, and insulting. He sent a similar letter to her in the following November. The trial justice found that the preponderance of the testimony proved that the respondent had treated the petitioner with extreme cruelty, and there is sufficient testimony in the record to justify this finding. The respondent claims that the petitioner condoned all past offenses by the resumption of marital relations May 30, 1923, and that his treatment of her since then has not caused the forfeiture of the defense of condonation.
The trial justice found that the respondent did not have a bona fide intent to treat his wife with such conjugal kindness in the future as to give her no just cause for complaint. This finding is supported by the language he used towards her when they separated that night and the two letters he subsequently wrote to her. A previous petition for divorce by her had been discontinued upon a reconciliation, and she continued to live with him until March, 1923, when she left him on account of his cruelty and filed the present petition. The respondent denied that he used improper language to his wife on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimes v. Grimes
...is required for such purpose than to support a charge of extreme cruelty, relying on Grant v. Grant, 44 R.I. 169, 116 A. 481, Mason v. Mason, 46 R.I. 43, 124 A. 730, and Egidi v. Egidi, 37 R.I. 481, 93 A. 908, Ann.Cas.1918A, 648; and that, considering the evidence before and after the last ......
-
Castelli v. Castelli, 9473
...59 R.I. 401, 195 A. 596. In regard to condonation, the law is fully set out in Egidi v. Egidi, 37 R.I. 481, 93 A. 908. In Mason v. Mason, 46 R.I. 43, 45, 124 A. 730, it is stated: 'Condonation is conditional forgiveness and it is forfeited by further misconduct, and in cases of cruelty trea......
-
Root v. Root, 7718.
...should not be disturbed by this court, unless it clearly fails to do justice between the parties, or is clearly erroneous. Mason v. Mason, 46 R.I. 43, 44, 124 A. 730; Warren v. Warren, 33 R.I. 71, 80 A. 593. Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the decision did not clearl......
-
Sherman v. Sherman
...from our examination of the evidence that his decision is clearly wrong or that it fails to do justice between the parties. Mason v. Mason, 46 R.I. 43, 124 A. 730; Warren v. Warren, 33 R.I. 71, 80 A. We may add here that, as this old couple may compose their differences and live out the rem......