Politte v. Politte
| Decision Date | 16 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 27815,27815 |
| Citation | 230 S.W.2d 142 |
| Parties | POLITTE v. POLITTE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Vernon C. Oetting, St. Louis, Ernest L. Keathley, St. Louis, (George E. Messing, St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant.
J. W. Thurman, Hillsboro, for respondent.
This is a divorce suit brought by George Politte, as plaintiff, against Elsie May Politte, as defendant. To the plaintiff's petition, defendant filed a cross bill. The trial below resulted in a finding in favor of plaintiff on his petition, and in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on her cross bill. From the judgment, defendant has appealed.
The petition for divorce is based upon the following alleged indignities charged by plaintiff to have been offered him by defendant, and which he claimed rendered his condition as husband intolerable. 'The defendant on innumerable occasions from the time of the marriage until the day of separation called the plaintiff, his children and his friends abusive names and habitually used toward the plaintiff and his intimates profane and vulgar language; the defendant was on numerous occasions involved in quarrels and fights of such nature as to call for the intervention of the police and the courts, and is now under parole; the defendant on one occasion, about a week after Labor Day 1946, followed the plaintiff for three blocks using abusive language and caused a scene which resulted in police court action; the defendant struck the plaintiff in police court; the defendant was cruel to the plaintiff by mistreating and being cruel to the daughter, Ruth, of the plaintiff, called Ruth vile names, struck her, pulled the beads from the neck of Ruth and burned Ruth with the heated end of a lighted cigarette; the defendant threw a brick through the window of the residence with the intention of striking this plaintiff with said brick; the defendant refused to make or properly keep a home for the plaintiff; the defendant has considerable financial means of her own but refused to cooperate with the plaintiff in times of financial stress even to the extent of making a temporary secured loan, at one time the plaintiff was about to lose his business because of failure to have $500 to pay off the lien of a payroll tax, the defendant would not aid the plaintiff even though at the time she had $4000 cash in the house; the defendant had shortly before the separation property bringing her a net income of $190 per month but bought and held that property in her maiden name of Elsie May Glass, thereby ignoring her marriage name, and in effect repudiating the same.'
Defendant's cross bill was based on the following indignities:
'(a) That plaintiff failed to provide defendant with the proper food and clothing and failed to provide for even the necessaries of life.
'(b) That plaintiff resented and objected to the love and affection shown defendant by his own children of a former marriage.
'(c) That plaintiff used profane and abusive language to defendant and toward his own children in the presence of said minor and infant children.
'(d) That plaintiff on numerous occasions threatened great bodily harm to defendant and also threatened defendant's life.
'(e) That plaintiff frequently struck, beat and assaulted defendant.
'(f) That on several occasions plaintiff dragged defendant about their home by the head of her hair.
'(g) That on one occasion plaintiff locked defendant in their living quarters and threatened to burn same down and poured paint about the doors and woodwork threatening to set fire to same.
'(h) That on one occasion which occurred on or about August 7, 1948, plaintiff assaulted, struck and beat defendant so severely that when she finally escaped from him, she fell unconscious by the roadside and was picked up and ministered to by passers-by.
'(i) That the conduct and demeanor of the plaintiff has caused defendant to suffer mental and physical anguish and pain; that during the time of their cohabitation the relationship between plaintiff and defendant has been strained and unnatural and not conducive to marital happiness; that by reason of such mental cruelty, defendant's condition as plaintiff's wife has become intolerable and unbearable.'
The parties were married August 9, 1945, and separated August 7, 1948. Both parties had been married previously. Plaintiff had six children by his former wife--three of them small children in the custody of their mother. Defendant had no children. After they were married the parties lived in St. Louis until 1947, when they moved to a farm in Jefferson County.
Plaintiff testified that during the time he was married to defendant he furnished her a home and treated her with affection, but that during the three years of their married life defendant continuously planned for the day she would get a divorce. Plaintiff further testified that when defendant would get angry there was no limit to the kind of language she would use; that there was nothing too vulgar for her to say; that she had 'called him a 'son-of-a-bitch' more times than he had fingers and toes'; that she told his mother she was nothing but a 'bitch', and that defendant would call him these names in the presence of his children.
It appears that while living in St. Louis there was considerable quarreling and fighting between these parties which required the intervention of the police. Plaintiff stated that he appeared in the Police Court four or five times to answer complaints which defendant made against him. He stated that her insane jealousy caused him to be arrested, and that these charges were all dismissed except the first one, which resulted in his being convicted and paroled. He stated that after the last case was dismissed in the Police Court defendant struck him while there in the court. It appears that this incident occurred in September, 1947. The parties had been living on a farm in Jefferson County, and plaintiff had filed a suit for divorce on August 16, 1947, which was the fourth divorce suit that had been filed.
Defendant, who had left the farm, later returned, but again left on Labor Day and took up her residence at a rooming house which she owned and operated on Lafayette Avenue in St. Louis. A few days thereafter plaintiff was in St. Louis and received a message that defendant wanted to see him. There was a meeting of the parties which resulted in plaintiff's arrest. Plaintiff, in recounting the incident, stated: It appears that the charge against plaintiff growing out of this incident was dismissed when it came on for trial, and that as plaintiff was leaving the court,
Defendant denied that she ever threw a rock through the plaintiff's car.
On direct examination, defendant testified that on the occasion in question plaintiff asked her to put Gladys White out of the car, and when she told Gladys White what plaintiff had said, Mr. White got out of the car and started to 'jump' on plaintiff, whereupon plaintiff turned on defendant and hit her, knocking her out for three hours.
On cross-examination, defendant testified: 'He asked me to go up and get this woman out of the car. * * * I said, 'Mr. Politte said he didn't want you in the car.' She and I didn't have any trouble. She went to crying. He stood back there. He got me by the hair of the head and pulled me from as far as here to the wall and started beating me. I don't know why he was beating me. I started to get in the car and when I did she had already told my husband to stay out of the house. She didn't want him in their home. I was going to sit there and talk to her and he flew off and I never. When she called him that bad name, he saw they were going to jump him and he laid it on me. I started to get in the car and it made him mad because I said, 'Glady, Mr. Politte don't want you in the car.''
Plaintiff further testified that on one occasion he was struck on the head by a milk bottle which defendant threw at him, and on another occasion was struck by a pan which she hurled at him. He stated that both times he received cuts from the missiles thrown. Plaintiff further testified that defendant at other times threw things at him but on each occasion he was successful in dodging them.
Plaintiff's daughter Frances Ruth Politte testified that she lived with her father and stepmother for about a year after their marriage, and during that time she had heard defendant use vile language in front of her brother and sister. She stated that defendant did not keep house, and that during the time she (witness) lived there she did all the cooking and cleaning. She further testified that she saw defendant drunk once; that defendant 'drank whisky, hot toddies, coffee and aspirin, and coke and aspirin.' The witness further testified that on one occasion she asked her fifteen year old sister if she would like to get some ice cream, whereupon defendant told the witness that her sister could not go with her. Defendant then jumped at her and pulled off a Catholic medal she was wearing. The witness stated: 'she called me a whore and said I laid up with every boy I came across.' On this occasion defendant was arrested and convicted in the Police Court, but was put on probation.
Fred Bailey, an employee of plaintiff, testified that from February to May, 1948, he roomed at the place on Lafayette...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. Reeves
...S.W.2d 59, 61; Garton v. Garton, Mo.App., 246 S.W.2d 832, 837(3); Scheer v. Scheer, Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 865, 867-868; Politte v. Politte, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 142, 148(4).6 Myers v. Myers, Mo.App., 356 S.W.2d 522, 525(3-5); Pipkin v. Pipkin, Mo.App., 255 S.W.2d 66, 68(2); Rowland v. Rowland,......
-
L v. N
...S.W.2d 441, 442(1); Holmes v. Holmes, Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 390, 392(2); Cody v. Cody, Mo.App., 233 S.W.2d 777, 782(6); Politte v. Politte, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 142, 148(4); Rowland v. Rowland, Mo.App., 227 S.W.2d 478, 484(2, 3); Ridge v. Ridge, Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 294, 300(10); Tebbe v. Tebbe......
-
Davis v. Davis
...869, 872(3); Cadenhead v. Cadenhead, Mo.App., 265 S.W.2d 426, 436(6); Dunlap v. Dunlap, Mo.App., 255 S.W.2d 441, 442(1); Politte v. Politte, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 142, 148; Rowland v. Rowland, Mo.App., 227 S.W.2d 478, 484(3)]; and, in determining custody of the minor children, Ardys' success ......
-
Moore v. Moore
...559, 185 S.W. 762(2); Oliver v. Oliver, Mo.App., 325 S.W.2d 33, 38; Elliston v. Elliston, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 63, 69; Politte v. Politte, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 142, 148. ...