Richards v. Richards
| Decision Date | 08 November 1860 |
| Citation | 37 Pa. 225 |
| Parties | Richards <I>versus</I> Richards. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Common Pleas of Crawford county.
D. M. Farrelly, with whom was J. W. Farrelly, for plaintiff in error.—The court below, while seeking to explain the error for which this decree was reversed before, repeated the error, and in effect gave the same instruction to the jury that was then complained of; to wit, that a single act of violence towards a wife, without regard to the circumstances under which it was committed, entitled her to a verdict and decree. That which will sustain an indictment for an assault and battery will not justify a divorce, and yet the court permitted the jury to suppose that their verdict in this case depended on the illegality of the act complained of. This was error: Barrere v. Barrere, 1 Hagart 35; 2 Kent Com. 126; 1 Grant's Cases 389; 4 Johns. Ch. Rep 189; French v. French, 4 Mass. Rep. 587. The opinions of witnesses as to the effect of his conduct are inadmissible: Forbes v. Caruthers, 3 Y. 527; Given v. Albert, 5 W. & S. 337.
Church, contrà.
The opinion of the court was delivered, November 8th 1860, by LOWRIE, C. J.
One cause of divorce for ill-usage is when a husband has "by cruel and barbarous treatment endangered his wife's life;" but there can be no pretence of such ill-usage in this case. Another cause is when a husband has "offered such indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome, and thereby forced her to withdraw from his house and family." This, therefore, is the matter to be proved in this case.
We had this cause here three years ago, and we then reversed a decree in favour of the wife, because on the trial the judge below had instructed the jury that if the husband, in anger and madness, twisted his wife's nose she was entitled to a verdict. On another trial, had since that, the judge instructed the jury in the words fully quoted in the third assignment of error. A careful reading of what is there said will show that the thought intended is very confusedly and unfortunately expressed. Though the judge speaks of the general conduct of the husband, yet we understand his relevant instruction to be that if the pulling of the wife's nose was done in rudeness and in anger, in a coarse, vulgar, and harsh manner, there should be a verdict in her favour. This is substantially the very error that caused the former reversal. It is an instruction that utterly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mendenhall v. Mendenhall
...if they were to be allowed to disregard or violate them, and that the Supreme Court will reverse when such is the case. In Richards v. Richards. 37 Pa. 225, which perhaps as strong a case as there is in the books, in asserting that one act is not enough, the Supreme Court reversed the court......
-
Middleton v. Middleton
...has in their sanctity has led courts to be strict in the construction of the causes of divorce: Edmond's App., 57 Pa. 232; Richards v. Richards, 37 Pa. 225. in common-law cases the verdict of the jury, and in ordinary equity cases the finding of a master confirmed by the lower court (where ......
-
Hepworth v. Hepworth
...depend upon all the circumstances of the particular case and the position in life, character and disposition, of the parties: Richards v. Richards, 37 Pa. 225; Aikens v. Aikens, 57 Pa.Super. 424; Sharp Sharp, 106 Pa.Super. 33, 161 A. 453. It is well settled, however, that it is not with iso......
-
Bealor v. Hahn
...App., 37 Pa. 443; Gordon v. Gordon, 48 Pa. 226; Miles v. Miles, 76 Pa. 357; Jones v. Jones, 66 Pa. 494; May v. May, 62 Pa. 206; Richards v. Richards, 37 Pa. 225. Mr. Hay Brown, for the defendant in error: 1. There is nothing in the record offered to indicate why the court ordered Mr. Hahn t......