Rose v. Rose
| Decision Date | 03 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,601 - (238) |
| Citation | 156 N.W. 664,132 Minn. 340 |
| Parties | MAURICE ROSE v. BERTHA ROSE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action for divorce in the district court for Hennepin county. The case was tried before Jelley, J., who denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and awarded the custody of the minor children to defendant. From the order denying her motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Divorce -- evidence of cruelty.
1. The evidence supports the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff suffered cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of defendant.
Evidence.
2. The trial court committed no prejudicial error in its rulings on the admission of testimony.
Divorce -- jurisdiction when defendant is nonresident.
3. The courts of this state have jurisdiction to decree a divorce for any cause allowed by its laws, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was at no time a resident of this state and without regard to the fact that the offense was committed outside of this state, and without regard to the fact that the parties were not living together as husband and wife at the time the offense was committed.
Hall Tautges & Sapiro, for appellant.
George B. Leonard, for respondent.
The parties hereto intermarried at San Jose, California, on the first day of August, 1900. Two children have been born to them, the issue of such marriage. On September 29, 1914, plaintiff, who had resided in this state for more than one year, began an action in Hennepin county for divorce from defendant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.
The parties had not lived and cohabited together as husband and wife since late in the year 1902. The acts of cruelty set out occurred outside the state of Minnesota, and before the plaintiff had taken up his residence here.
An action had been begun in March, 1914, in which the plaintiff herein was plaintiff and the defendant was defendant, for divorce on the ground of adultery. Later the two actions were consolidated and tried together as one. All charges of adultery were withdrawn and the action was tried to the court. No evidence was offered of any acts of cruelty prior to October, 1908. The trial, which began May 17, 1915, was concluded and the cause finally argued and submitted on the fifth of June, 1915. On the tenth of June, 1915, the court made its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, that the plaintiff be absolutely divorced from the defendant, and awarded the custody and control of the minor children to her. On the question of cruelty the court found that two allegations of the complaint had been sustained by the evidence and were true. Defendant appeals from the order denying her motion for a new trial.
The assignments of error attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, question the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence and finally raise the question as to the jurisdiction of the court to make a decree based on transactions occurring dehors the jurisdiction of the court and at a time when the parties were not living and cohabiting together as husband and wife.
1. No good purpose would be accomplished by reciting the unfortunate marital history of these litigants. An examination of the bulky record and numerous exhibits leads one to the conclusion that their married life was far from harmonious. A careful examination of the record satisfies us that there is evidence amply sufficient to support the finding "(c)", that a gang of men, at the instigation of the defendant and in her pay, assaulted and severely beat this plaintiff under conditions of unusual brutality. Whether or not the evidence sustains the finding that the allegations in paragraph "(b)" relating to malicious prosecutions are true becomes of secondary importance. We do not pass on that question.
2. Other assignments of error challenge the rulings of the court excluding certain oral testimony, and exhibits, covering the period between the date of the marriage and the year 1908. The plaintiff made no attempt to prove any allegation in either complaint, charging any act prior to the month of October, 1908. Indeed, he expressly withdrew such allegations and expressly disclaimed any intention of proving them. Most of the rulings occurred on offers to prove facts happening prior to that time. None of the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial