Motley v. Motley
| Decision Date | 01 April 1902 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. MOTLEY, Respondent, v. ANNA B. MOTLEY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.--Hon. David H. Eby, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Tapley & Fitzgerrel, W. O. Gray and J. D. Hostetter for appellant.
(1) All of the indignities alleged in plaintiff's petition, in the case at bar, except the charge of poisoning, were trivial, ancient, and had been condoned, if indeed they ever constituted offenses which would justify a severance of the marital ties. As to the charge that defendant attempted to take plaintiff's life by administering strychnine poison she certainly is entitled to the same presumption of innocence which would prevail in the event she were arrested and required to be defendant against such a charge in the criminal courts, and it certainly follows that the same quantum of proof would be required to establish her guilt in the case at bar, as it would in a criminal case. Before a court could properly find against her in this case on that issue she should be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Rice on Evidence, sec. 85, p. 125. (2) The court erred in making the allowances to the defendant so meager and insufficient. Defendant was confronted with a grave criminal charge. She was an invalid and practically without means. She was, therefore, by reason of this pecuniary embarrassment unable to procure the necessary means and witnesses, medical and otherwise, to clear herself of the awful charge that was made against her. It goes without saying that the sums allowed by the court were grossly inadequate and insufficient for any purpose.
R. L Motley, Dempsey & McGinnis, Ball & Sparrow and E. W. Major for respondent.
(1) While in divorce cases, it is the province of the appellate court to make its own deductions from the evidence, independent of the findings of the trial court, yet where the evidence is conflicting and contradictory on material issues, the appellate court will defer largely to the findings of the court below, and will not disturb same unless it is made clearly to appear that manifest error has been committed in the conclusions reached by the trial court. King v. King, 42 Mo.App. 454; Lawlor v. Lawlor, 76 Mo.App. 637; Munchow v. Munchow, 78 Mo.App. 99; Torlotting v. Torlotting, 82 Mo.App. 192; Endsley v. Endsley, 89 Mo.App. 596. (2) The indignities which the evidence establishes beyond a doubt were offered to respondent, are such as the appellate courts recognize as being indignities contemplated by the statutes, and authorizing a decree. Lynch v. Lynch, 87 Mo.App. 32; Goodman v. Goodman, 80 Mo.App. 274. (3) Alimony may be allowed in the discretion of the court and is not an absolute right. The appellant in this case had no absolute right for any allowance whatever, and if nothing had been allowed her, that fact would be of no avail upon appeal. Penningroth v. Penningroth, 71 Mo.App. 438.
Omitting caption and immaterial allegations, the petition alleges in substance that plaintiff and defendant were married in the month of November, 1876, and continued to live together until the day of May, 1901, when the plaintiff separated himself from the defendant. The petition alleges sundry indignities offered by defendant to plaintiff beginning in the year 1889 and continuing down to the date of the separation, some of which indignities are so vile and vulgar in character that we decline to state them in detail, as we deem it unnecessary from the view we take of the evidence in the case. The most serious allegation contained in the petition is that the defendant kept poison in her possession and in the month of April, 1891, threatened to poison plaintiff and that on the third day of May, 1891, she deposited and intermingled poison of some kind in the plaintiff's food, which she had prepared for him to eat, and that he ate of the food and was poisoned thereby.
The answer denied the indignities and the poisoning alleged in the petition, and by way of cross-bill alleged that the plaintiff had offered to her such indignities as to render her condition in life intolerable, which are set out in detail in the cross-bill.
The evidence offered by the plaintiff satisfactorily establishes the truth of several of the indignities set out in his petition and tends to show that defendant had a violent temper; that she believed herself to be superior to the plaintiff, intellectually and otherwise; that she often charged the plaintiff with not having good sense. At times she would not eat at the same table with him and would go for a week or ten days without speaking to him and it was not an unusual thing for her, in the presence of others, to call plaintiff an "old ash cat," and "old fool," and use vile and vulgar epithets towards him; that she would correct his language when in conversation with others, tell him to "hush up" that he was an "old fool" and that he was just like his old ignorant mother, and speak of his mother in his presence using such epithets as "old witch," "old sloven," and "old slut;" that she would not visit plaintiff's family nor permit them to visit him at his home.
The evidence further is that in the presence of other people she would express a wish to die; would say that life was no pleasure to her as plaintiff was mean and that she had poison and intended to use it.
Prior to May, 1891, she had tried to induce the plaintiff to make a will and leave his property to her during her life, remainder over to her brother, Charles Robinson. This plaintiff declined to do. On many occasions she made threats and said she would have his property if she had to wade through blood to get it.
The day previous to the alleged poisoning, defendant stated to a Miss Shadwell, while speaking of plaintiff and his property, that plaintiff had required her to work and help make the property like Mr. Uptergrove (a neighbor) had his wife and that if she had a husband like Mr. Uptergrove she would give him a dose and then stated, "I have got one just like him." A short time prior to this she stated to Miss Shadwell and to another lady that she would not be surprised at anything, that people were so mean they would do anything for money and that they need not be surprised at her killing Willie (meaning her husband) or he killing her. When Miss Shadwell was last at her house and when she started to leave she said to her, "Remember there is going to be something awful happen after you are gone and you will hear of it."
Plaintiff and defendant lived on a farm in the country. They had no children. On the third day of May, 1901, defendant prepared breakfast for the plaintiff. The plaintiff ate of the breakfast prepared by her. He ate some meat, biscuit and butter and eggs, and drank a cup of coffee. The defendant did not eat of the breakfast. After he had finished his breakfast he walked from the dining-room to the kitchen, took a dipper of water and rinsed his mouth and then walked to the smoke house, took up his milk bucket and proceeded on towards the barn to milk, which was about fifty or sixty yards from the house. When he reached the barn fence he was all over in a quiver and his muscles were jerking. Realizing what had happened he did not return to the house or call to his wife but leaned against the fence and held on for support and called for a colored man by the name of Parsons, who lived near by. Parsons heard him and came to his assistance. Before he reached him he had fallen to the ground. Ben Young, James Young, James Hill, Fount Anson, James Wilson and Mrs. Emily Young, living near by were warned of the condition of plaintiff and came to his assistance. They carried him into the hall of the barn and laid him on some straw and chaff and Parsons went for a doctor. Ben Young procured oil and milk, warm water and salt and administered it to plaintiff. This caused him to vomit.
The evidence of the parties named above, who were the first to reach him, said he suffered from a severe hurting in his breast that seemed to draw and choke him so that he could scarcely breathe; that he had convulsions from five to fifteen...
To continue reading
Request your trial