Paris v. Paris

• Decision Date: 01 December 1943
• Docket Number: 14708.
• Citation: 28 S.E.2d 452,197 Ga. 162
• Parties: PARIS v. PARIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 S.E.2d 452

197 Ga. 162

PARIS v. PARIS.

No. 14708.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 1, 1943

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a divorce action of a husband against his wife, absed upon alleged cruelty of the wife, it is proper for the court to give in charge to the jury the law of condonation, where it appears from the evidence that the wife 'on occasions * * * would promise to do better,' the evidence failing to disclose when such promises were made with reference to the date of separation, or what acts of cruelty if any, the wife committed subsequently to such promises even though it further appears that the continuity of cohabitation was unbroken until the final separation.

2. The general grounds of the motion for new trial, not having been argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Howard, Camp & Tiller, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Carl T. Hudgins, of Decatur, for defendant in error.

WYATT Justice.

1. Lewie M. Paris brought suit for divorce against his wife, Clara Gay Paris. The suit was based on allegations of cruel treatment. The wife denied the acts of cruelty alleged against her and opposed his prayer for divorce. She also charged her husband with cruelty of and towards her, and asked that she be granted a divorce. She prayed for permanent alimony and attorney's fee. She later abandoned her prayer for a divorce. The jury denied the husband a divorce and found in favor of alimony for the wife and minor children. The husband moved for a new trial, and to the order overruling his motion, as amended, he excepted.

There is only one special assignment of error and that complains because the judge gave in charge to the jury the law of condonation in its relation to cruel treatment. No attack is made on the charge itself, in fact it is conceded the charge complained of stated a correct principle of law. The complaint is based upon the contention that the charge on the subject of condonation was not applicable to the pleadings or the evidence. The husband testified to the effect that he and the defendant were married in March, 1928, and separated in May, 1940, and that they had four children ranging in ages from five to twelve years. He said: 'To state in a general way the conditions under which we were living and what brought about the separation between Mrs. Paris and me soon after we were married I realized that I had quite a problem on my hands in order to make a go of my married life, but I was perfectly willing to put out whatever effort was necessary for me to do in order to make that home. In the very beginning she demonstrated her inability to keep a home, and that she couldn't properly prepare food.' He then enumerated instances running all through their married life in which he contended that his wife would not properly keep the home, did not properly look after the children, was unclean as to her person and clothing, and that he moved nine times because she would become dissatisfied; that she made no effort to cultivate friends; that he could not invite his friends to his home because of the unclean manner in...