Page v. Page

• Citation: 86 P. 582,43 Wash. 293
• Parties: PAGE v. PAGE.
• Decision Date: 28 July 1906
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

86 P. 582

43 Wash. 293

PAGE v. PAGE.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 28, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Grace Page against Will Page. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant plaintiff a divorce.

Richardson Roche & Onstine, for appellant.

R. M Barnhart and A. J. Langhorn, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

This is an action brought to obtain a decree of divorce. In her complaint the appellant alleged that the defendant during the past three or four years had become addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, so much so that he had come home drunk as often as two or three times a week during all of such time, and that this habit had become so firmly fixed upon him that he could no longer resist the temptation to drink whenever opportunity offered, and had become a habitual drunkard. She further alleged that the respondent had during such time squandered the greater part of his earnings for drink, and had failed and refused to make suitable provision for her support, compelling her to live in part upon the charity of her parents and friends, and that he had loathsome and filthy habits when drunk, and had been guilty of personal indignities toward her while intoxicated causing her great mental anguish and rendering her life burdensome. The respondent, although personally served in the county in which the action was brought, made no appearance and the action was defended by the prosecuting attorney. The appellant's testimony substantiated her complaint. She testified that the respondent did most of his drinking in the evening; that he worked stedily enough during the day, but would leave his home immediately after supper, and come home later in the night in a drunken condition, at which times he was morose and quarrelsome, and would call her vile names and accuse her of indefidelity. She further testified that he spent most of his earnings upon himself, leaving her at times without the means to supply their home with necessaries. On cross-examination she stated that her husband's habits did not incapacitate him for work; that he worked stedily during the past two years for a transfer company, with the exception of about two weeks at one time, when the company discharged him, and another short period when he was ill. The appellant was corroborated in the main by her sister and by a Miss Wilson, who appear to have had abundant opportunities for observation. At the conclusion of the evidence the court adjourned the case to a day later for argument. At the time to which it was adjourned the state produced a witness, called, so the record recites, at the instance of the judge trying the case, who testified that he was the manager of the transfer company for whom the respondent had worked; that the respondent had worked steadily for that company for a year past in the capacity of a helper on one of the company's wagons, and during that time he had never known him to be drunk or seem him take a drink. On cross-examination, however, he testified that it would be possible for the respondent to drink to excess and the fact be unknown to him; also, that on a certain Sunday the respondent did some extra work for the company, and did not have the money earned from the work to turn in on the following Monday morning. Being asked if it were not a fact that on 'one Sunday he got drunk and squandered some of the firm's money and lost some of the transfer checks,' he answered: 'I don't know, only from hearsay. I know he didn't have the money to turn in.' The plaintiff thereupon asked leave to reopen her case and offer further testimony on the main issues. This the court denied, but permitted her to offer testimony in rebuttal of the witness called by the state. The appellant thereupon produced two witnesses to the effect that the respondent would sometimes show signs of intoxication when he would come home to his noon meal, and that he frequently drank beer in considerable quantities with his meals. The court...