Pierce v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 06 April 1920
• Docket Number: No. 15827.,15827.
• Citation: 220 S.W. 506
• Parties: PIERCE v. PIERCE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

220 S.W. 506

PIERCE v. PIERCE.

No. 15827.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 6, 1920.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1920.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Vital W. Garesche, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Edward R. Pierce against Clara Pierce. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. A. Loevy, of St. Louis, for appellant.

John B. Denvir, Jr., of St. Louis, for respondent.

BARNES, C.

This was an action for divorce instituted by the husband on September 15, 1916. The petition alleged the marriage of the parties on January 11, 1908, at East St. Louis, Ill., and separation on June 14, 1916; that four children aged, eight, six, four, and three years, respectively, were born of the marriage; that the parties had resided within this state for the length of time required to confer jurisdiction, and that the offenses complained of were committed in this state. The defendant is charged with offering to plaintiff "such indignities as to render his condition intolerable, in this, to wit, that defendant neglected to cook plaintiff's meals, and from the period, to wit, March, 1915, to January, 1916, stayed out all night against plaintiff's wishes and without his consent on an average of once a week, and from the period beginning June 14, 1916, stayed out all night on an average of three times a week, against plaintiff's wishes and without his consent."

Plaintiff testified that during their entire married life, some eight years, defendant cooked only one meal a day, and that he cooked the remainder, without any complaint. The wife testified that she cooked all of plaintiff's meals with the exception of those times when she was confined to her bed with child. She is corroborated to some extent by one of the neighbors called by plaintiff as witness.

With reference to defendant staying away from home overnight, plaintiff testified that in January, 1916, he commenced to keep tab upon defendant, and that she was absent, either until early hours of the morning, or all night, on three dates in January, three in February, and four in each of the months of March, April, and May, and once in June. He also testified that she was occasionally absent from home between March, 1915, and January, 1916. The husband was not corroborated in this testimony except such as the wife gave, which was to the effect that she was not absent the number of times suggested by the plaintiff, but that in 1915 she was absent during the month of December upon several occasions, because of the serious illness, resulting in the death, of her father, and at whose funeral the plaintiff acted as pallbearer, and that she was absent a few times in 1916, necessitated by the illness of a niece and of her sister, a widow with three children, and that upon these occasions she was at her sister's home. She further testified that she took one or all of the children with her upon these visits, with the exception of such times as her father was so ill that it was undesirable to have them accompany her. She further testified that she was accompanied home by a nephew upon the times that she was not accompanied by one of her own children. She further testified that her husband knew at all times where she was, was asked to accompany her, and failed to do so, and, not withstanding, frequently attacked her reputation for virtue and chastity. On some of the occasions when the wife was ill, the husband assisted with the dishes and bathed the children.

The testimony, aside from the parties, is to the effect that the wife was a good housekeeper, a good mother, and a most estimable wife. There was friction in the household. The husband admitted that he was not a 100 per cent. model...