Miles v. Miles

• Decision Date: 06 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21953.,21953.
• Citation: 54 S.W.2d 741
• Parties: MILES v. MILES.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

54 S.W.2d 741

MILES v. MILES.

No. 21953.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 6, 1932.

Rehearing Denied December 20, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Fred E. Mueller, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Divorce action by Charles C. Miles against Susan C. Miles. From a judgment for plaintiff, granting him a divorce and an order on defendant's motion for alimony and expense money pending her appeal, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Gus O. Nations and Patrick H. Cullen, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Stout & Spencer, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action for divorce. Plaintiff and defendant were married on May 10, 1911. They separated on February 15, 1930. Plaintiff charges in his petition, as grounds for a divorce, intolerable indignities offered him by defendant, in that defendant constantly quarreled and nagged at him, and did everything in her power to annoy and harass him and deprive him of peace and quiet in his home. Defendant, in her answer, admits the marriage of plaintiff and defendant as alleged in the petition, and denies specifically the indignities charged against her, and for further defense charges that plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce, because of divers indignities to which he has subjected her during the last years of their married life. She does not ask for a divorce.

The trial was had in May and June, 1931. Judgment was given for plaintiff granting him a divorce. Defendant appeals.

Defendant insists here that the evidence shows plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce, and asks for a reversal of the judgment. It therefore becomes necessary to set out in some detail the salient portions of the testimony gleaned from 726 pages of printed record.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in Cleveland, Ohio. After their marriage, they lived on a Bermuda onion ranch in Texas for about a year, and then moved to St. Louis and lived at 6157a Etzel avenue in a flat for about three years. They then moved to a four-family apartment at 6000 Etzel avenue and lived there about eight years. They then purchased and moved to a new place on Bartmer avenue, where they lived until their final separation.

Until about two years before their separation, there was no serious trouble between them. In fact, the evidence tends strongly to show that they were an unusually devoted couple, and were almost constant companions. Their devotion to each other was such that it became a matter of comment amongst their neighbors and friends. Mr. Miles was president of the Hodiamont Bank, and as such prospered. About one and a half or two years before their separation Miss Myrtle Junge took a position with plaintiff as a stenographer and secretary at the bank. Previous to that time the evidence shows there had been no serious trouble between plaintiff and defendant as husband and wife. It is true plaintiff testified that defendant had been constantly, quarrelsome and had fussed and nagged at him so that he was greatly annoyed and his peace of mind was destroyed. In support of this he testified to a number of specific instances when defendant complained, fussed, and nagged, causing him annoyance and embarrassment. These, however, were shown to be of a trivial character. For example, plaintiff testified that on one occasion, after he had made flower beds in the yard and cultivated them for defendant's enjoyment, the defendant told him that he had trimmed the roses too short; that she complained about that, and fussed with him about it; that she told him he had got the pansies in the bed too far apart, and wanted them closer together.

He also testified that defendant got into quarrels and difficulties with the neighbors, and would bring her troubles to him and annoy him about them. He mentioned some four or five different neighbors that she quarreled with during their twenty years of married life.

In the view we take of this case, it would serve no useful purpose to set out in detail all of the accusations made by plaintiff against the defendant with respect to her disposition to quarrel and nag. It is but fair to say, however, that the defendant denied that she quarreled with her neighbors, or with the plaintiff, or that she fussed and nagged at him, but stated that she always treated him kindly and with affection, and was in every way a dutiful wife; and the corroborating evidence tends strongly to show the truth of her testimony.

Miss Junge was the fiancée of Jack Hopson. He was a cousin of Mrs. Miles and a son of Mrs. Miles' aunt, who lived next door to the Miles home. He was an employee in the Hodiamont Bank. On December 19, 1927, he was killed while in the employ of the bank by bank robbers. After that, about June, 1928, Miss Junge came and lived with Jack Hopson's mother next door to the Miles home. In August, 1928, she took employment with plaintiff in the Hodiamont Bank. While thus employed, she went to business college, and in March, 1929, became plaintiff's secretary. For some reason she did not get along well with Mrs. Hopson, and on invitation by Mr. and Mrs. Miles she came to live in their home.

Mr. Miles testified that this was entirely agreeable to both him and Mrs. Miles, and that it was understood that she came to live in their home as their daughter. He further testified that in June, 1929, things became so unpleasant in the home that on June 10th he left home and went to the Roosevelt Hotel, where he stayed until July 1st, when he returned home, and that when he left he told Mrs. Miles that as long as Miss Junge was in the house he would not return. Miss Junge left the Miles home some time before plaintiff returned home.

Plaintiff testified that defendant several times asked him to discharge Miss Junge from his employment. He further testified as follows: "I remember the occasion when Mrs. George came to the house, when Mrs. Miles' face was battered up. I don't know how her face happened to be battered up. I saw her when she was in that condition. I don't recall where it was that I first saw her in that condition. I believe it was in the afternoon. I came home and wanted to get a blank note out of the desk drawer that was used in common between us. I went to the desk and tried to open the desk drawer and it was locked. I asked Mrs. Miles, `What is the occasion for this? Where is the key to the desk?' She said `Never mind, there is something in that desk I don't want you to see.' Mrs. Miles started to scream. I wasn't anyways near her. She got hysterical and started to scream and I started to argue, tried to persuade her to quiet down. She continued to scream. Then I walked up to her and tried to put my hand over her mouth, and she slapped me and kicked me on the shins. Then she ran out the front door screaming. I stood at the front door and begged her to come back in, and not to make a fool of herself. That was all that happened. I don't know how she got her face battered up. I don't think that her face was battered up. The next morning she had a couple of black eyes. I did not beat her in the face with my fist and carry her upstairs and throw her on the floor in the bathroom and put my foot on her and knock her against the bath tub. Nothing of that kind occurred at all. I don't recall being in the bathroom. I did not have my foot on her. I did not carry her upstairs that I recall. I don't think so. I don't know how she got her black eyes. When she left the house, she said she was going across the street to the chief of police. I don't think this happened in the morning. I think it happened in the evening. I think Mrs. George came in the next morning. Mrs. Miles called her. Miss Green came with her. When Mrs George came into the house, I said `Mrs. George, I guess you will think I am a brute.' Mrs. Miles was in bed. I did not say to Mrs. George, `I guess I am a brute.' I said `Mrs. George, I guess you think I am a brute.' When Mrs. George and Miss Green came, Mrs. Miles had her eyes blackened. I don't think one of them was closed. I didn't see any blood. She was not spitting up blood that I saw. I don't think her throat was lacerated, inflamed, and red. I don't recall that there was blood on the bathroom floor."

Plaintiff discharged Miss Junge on the day that he brought this divorce suit. He testified that he did this because he felt that it would save general embarrassment and save her embarrassment, and that he thought it might embarrass the bank if he entered the divorce suit while he had Miss Junge in his employ.

Plaintiff owned two automobiles, one was a Moon cabriolet, and the other a Diana sedan. The Moon was a new car, and the Diana an old one. Miss Junge and the plaintiff drove the new car. The defendant drove the old Diana.

One one occasion plaintiff and defendant, with Miss Junge and a number of friends, drove to the Von Hoffmann farm. Plaintiff drove the Moon car. Miss Junge rode with him in the front seat. Two small boys rode in the rumble seat. Defendant drove the Diana sedan. A number of friends rode with her in the Diana. The party left St. Louis early in the morning; the distance to the Von Hoffmann farm being about 90 or 125 miles. They spent the day at the farm. In the evening, when the party were all packed up to start home, plaintiff announced that he had forgotten the keys to his car. Mr. Kobusch, a member of the party, volunteered to drive in and get the keys. Plaintiff and Miss Junge stayed at the farm, and all the rest of the party, including the small boys, returned to St. Louis. Plaintiff testified that, while waiting for Mr. Kobusch to return with the keys, he and Miss Junge talked to the keeper of the fish hatchery. He said that the fish hatchery man was very interesting. The fish hatchery man did not testify. Plaintiff and Miss Junge arrived home about 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning.

After the Von Hoffmann trip, the Mileses and Miss Junge went with a party of friends to...