McCarthy v. McCarthy

• Decision Date: 13 March 1906
• Citation: 117 Mo. App. 115,93 S.W. 317
• Parties: McCARTHY v. McCARTHY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

93 S.W. 317

117 Mo. App. 115

McCARTHY v. McCARTHY.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 13, 1906.

1. DIVORCE—GROUNDS—HABITUAL DRUNKENESS.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2921, making habitual drunkenness lasting for one year, ground for a divorce, habitual drunkenness for a less period is not sufficient to justify a divorce.

2. SAME.

In an action for divorce, where the petition alleged frequent drunkenness of the wife, further allegations in connection therewith that she would remain away from home all day drinking, and in some instances all night, these acts being continued for a period of less than a year, are not sufficient to justify a decree of divorce.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neill Ryan, Judge.

Action by Thomas McCarthy against Mary McCarthy. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Eugene Hale, for appellant.

GOODE, J.

Plaintiff and defendant were married on October 21, 1904, and lived together for about two months or until the 28th of the following December, when defendant left plaintiff's home, and he has not seen her since. At the time of their marriage plaintiff had three little children born of a previous marriage and defendant a daughter 16 years old. The grounds on which the divorce was prayed are thus stated: "That defendant within one week after the marriage aforesaid began to drink intoxicating liquor to excess; that as soon as plaintiff would leave home for his work of a morning, defendant would leave home, leaving plaintiff's children (by a former deceased wife) unwashed, and leaving the household work undone; that defendant would remain away all day drinking, and in some instances remained out all night; that defendant frequently returned home in a state of intoxication." Defendant was in the habit of getting drunk and was under the influence of liquor five times or oftener, during the period she lived with plaintiff. At some of those times she was too drunk to prepare the meals and at others she was not. The evidence shows, too, that while she did not abuse plaintiff's children, she neglected them. They went dirty and unkempt. Plaintiff expostulated with her about her habits in these words: "Mary, can't you do a little different, can't you look after the house? There is your daughter; I don't want her to go to work. She can help you out and do a whole lot things. I am making a pretty good salary, and I think you can keep the house." It appears that defendant took umbrage at the foregoing reproof and deserted plaintiff. He testified that as he was leaving home one morning, she told him to come home at noon as she was going to leave that day. She went to lodge at another woman's house on Montrose avenue. This woman testified...