Rooney v. Rooney, 18085
| Decision Date | 25 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18085,18085 |
| Citation | 242 S.C. 503,131 S.E.2d 618 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frances R. ROONEY, Appellant, v. Francis M. ROONEY, Respondent. |
Frances R. Rooney, in pro. per.
Irvine F. Belser, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
This action was instituted in the County Court of Richland County by the petitioner, Mrs. Rooney, appellant here, seeking a divorce a mensa et thoro, and allied relief, on the ground of physical cruelty. The respondent, by way of answer, denied the material allegations of the petition and counterclaimed for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of habitual drunkenness. After several pendente lite hearings before the late Honorable John W. Crews, Associate Judge, the cause was referred to Honorable Harry Lightsey, Master in Equity for Richland County, who, after taking rather voluminous testimony, found against the appellant and in favor of the respondent on all material issues of fact; recommended that appellant be granted no relief, and that the respondent be granted a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and the custody of the children of the parties, subject to visitation rights accorded appellant.
Upon exceptions to the report of the Master, Judge Crews confirmed the report of the Master in its entirety and granted relief to the respondent accordingly.
The record reflects that throughout this rather lengthy domestic proceeding appellant has been represented from time to time by several lawyers, but she now appears before this court in propria persona.
Appellant's exceptions are five in number. Respondent contends that none of appellant's exceptions comply with Rule 4, Section 6, of the Rules of the Supreme Court and that this court should dismiss the appeal for this reason. As contended by respondent, appellant's exceptions, which we shall not bother to state here, for the most part represent a rather generalized and unspecific disagreement with the overall result reached by the trial court. We think, however, that appellant's exceptions do raise one question for our decision, the decision of which will control and determine any other questions which are conceivably properly before this court. That question is, whether there was error on the part of the trial court in finding that the appellant, as a matter of fact, was an habitual drunkard, within the meaning of the divorce law.
It is well settled that findings of fact by a master in an equity case such as this, concurred in by the trial judge, will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are without evidentiary support or are against the clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Lee, 0186
...drunkenness is the fixed habit of frequently getting drunk; it does not necessarily imply continual drunkenness. Rooney v. Rooney, 242 S.C. 503, 131 S.E.2d 618 (1963). Based on this definition, one need not be an alcoholic to be guilty of habitual drunkenness. It is sufficient if the use or......
-
Snipes v. Snipes
...getting drunk; it does not necessarily imply continual drunkenness." Id. at 78-79, 316 S.E.2d at 437 (citing Rooney v. Rooney, 242 S.C. 503, 505, 131 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1963)). In this case, Husband does not dispute he was using narcotic drugs prescribed by his physician. Wife and her brother......
-
Snipes v. Snipes
... ... imply continual drunkenness." Id. at 78-79, 316 ... S.E.2d at 437 (citing Rooney v. Rooney, 242 S.C ... 503, 505, 131 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1963)) ... In this ... ...
-
Fisher v. Fisher
...testimony from the transcript of record establishes a prima facie case of habitual drunkenness as defined in Rooney v. Rooney, 242 S.C. 503, 131 S.E.2d 618 (1963): (1) Appellant testified respondent drinks every weekend and frequently during the week, that he goes on drinking binges and tha......