Rusche v. Rusche, 26949.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 26949.,26949. |
| Citation | 200 S.W.2d 577 |
| Parties | RUSCHE v. RUSCHE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Theodore Bruere, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Action by August H. Rusche against Annie Rusche for divorce. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Edward V. Long, of Bowling Green, and Williams & Huston, of Troy, for appellant.
Fred D. Wilkins, of Louisiana, and Rendlen, White & Rendlen, of Hannibal, for respondent.
BENNICK, Commissioner.
This is an action for divorce, which was instituted by the husband, August H. Rusche, against his wife, Annie Rusche. From a decree in plaintiff's favor dissolving the bonds of matrimony entered into between him and defendant, the latter has brought her appeal to this court.
The parties were married in San Antonio, Texas, in 1922, and some two or three years later moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where they resided until the final separation on July 18, 1941, and where defendant still resides. Plaintiff came to Louisiana, Missouri, in September, 1942, to accept employment as an engineer at the plant of the Hercules Powder Company in that city, and thereafter brought his action for divorce in the Circuit Court of Pike County. Plaintiff is now about forty-eight years of age, and defendant perhaps a year younger. Two children were born of the marriage, a daughter, Rita, now twenty years of age, and a son, Joseph, now sixteen years of age. Both children reside with their mother in Philadelphia.
There was a prior separation of the parties in April, 1938, followed by a reconciliation in November, 1939, and culminating in the final separation on July 18, 1941.
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that he had faithfully demeaned himself as the husband of defendant, and had at all times treated her with kindness and affection, but that she, wholly disregarding her duties as his wife, had made his life miserable and rendered his condition in life intolerable, and for a long period of time prior to the final separation had neglected her duties to him and their home, and had displayed an attitude of viciousness and hatred towards him. He then alleged that defendant continuously nagged and abused him over money matters, notwithstanding the fact that he provided her with a suitable home, and gave her as much money as his salary and circumstances in life would permit; and he also alleged that after the reconciliation, she falsely accused him of associating with other women, all for the purpose of harassing, worrying, and tormenting him.
He specifically set out an incident occurring shortly prior to the separation, when defendant allegedly complained in a loud and angry manner over the insufficiency of the alleged sum of $58 which he gave her on that occasion, and then called in her uncle and aunt, and accused him, before them, of not supporting her, leading them to believe that he was withholding his money from her and was using the same for other and wrongful purposes. According to his petition, the uncle and aunt took sides with defendant and condemned plaintiff with hard, bitter, and cutting words for not furnishing defendant with more money, notwithstanding the fact that he had given defendant all of his salary and earnings except what was necessary for the payment of his outstanding obligations, as defendant well knew.
He recounted a further incident when, upon retiring for the night, he had placed a detective story magazine under his pillow with the intention of reading the same the next morning in bed. He alleged that shortly thereafter defendant jumped out of bed, shouting and screaming at the top of her voice, and accusing him of having hidden a knife under his pillow with which to murder her, and that she so accused him before her uncle and aunt, all to his great embarrassment, humiliation, and distress.
He alleged that defendant accused him of having a venereal disease, and so charged him at a hearing before the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, where, upon examination at the suggestion of the court, it was shown that the charge was unfounded and untrue. He also alleged that defendant, on numerous occasions, had stated that her sole desire and wish was that she could get a "gang" to take plaintiff out and give him the beating of his life.
He then set out that after the separation, he concluded that it would be for the best interests of his children if he would return home and try to effect a reconciliation; that he did go to his home, where he found his two children and visited with them until defendant came in, and with scorn and derision ordered him to leave; that when he asked that he be permitted to finish his visit with his children, defendant went to her uncle and aunt, who, together with her, called the police and compelled him to leave; that he was later injured at work, and confined in a hospital for nine days; and that the day after his discharge from the hospital, defendant filed a complaint against him in the Municipal Court, charging him with nonsupport, and causing him to be fined and thrown into jail until he was able to secure funds to pay the fine.
He concluded by alleging that he had turned over to defendant, as her sole property, their home in Philadelphia of the fair and reasonable value of $6,000, and had also given her his automobile and all other personal property of which he was possessed at the time.
For her answer defendant alleged that plaintiff left her without reasonable cause in April, 1938, at which time he entered into an agreement providing for the support of herself and the children; that in November, 1939, she and plaintiff became reconciled upon his assurance that he had broken off relations with a woman with whom he had been associating; and that they then lived together as husband and wife until July, 1941, when plaintiff finally deserted her without cause.
Defendant denied that plaintiff, throughout the marital period, had faithfully demeaned himself as her husband, and had treated her with kindness and affection at all times; that she had disregarded her duties as his wife, and had made his life miserable or had rendered his condition in life intolerable; that she had displayed an attitude of viciousness and hatred towards him; that she had continuously nagged and abused him over money matters; or that he had furnished her with as much money as his salary and circumstances in life would permit. On the contrary, she averred that during the latter period of the time that she and plaintiff lived together, he did not contribute in any substantial manner towards the support of herself and the children.
Defendant admitted that prior to the final separation, she accused plaintiff of associating with another woman, but averred that the charge was true, and that plaintiff had admitted that it was true.
As for the incident when plaintiff claimed to have given her the sum of $58, defendant alleged that the sum was only $15, and she denied that she threw the money down with scorn and in a rude and angry manner. She admitted having told her uncle and aunt, in plaintiff's presence, that he was not paying the bills for which he had contracted and was not properly supporting his family, and alleged that plaintiff thereupon admitted that he had not paid the bills, and insisted that he did not intend to do any more than he was then doing towards the support of defendant and the children.
Answering the charge that she had created a scene growing out of her suscreated a scene growing out of her suspicion that plaintiff had hidden a knife under his pillow, defendant alleged that she had seen him place something under his pillow, and that because of his previous threats to do her bodily harm, she inquired what the object was, and upon being shown that it was a rolled up magazine, said no more about the matter.
Defendant denied that she had at any time refused to live and cohabit with plaintiff as his wife, or that she had ever charged that he was suffering from a venereal disease. She admitted that when plaintiff had refused to contribute to the support of herself and the children, she had had him charged with nonsupport, and that at a hearing on the charge before the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, the court had determined that plaintiff had deserted her without reasonable cause, and had thereupon made an order upon plaintiff for the support of herself and the children.
She specifically denied that she had ever stated to plaintiff that her sole desire and wish was that she might be able to get a "gang" to take plaintiff out and give him the beating of his life.
Defendant denied plaintiff's version of the facts relating to the occasion of his visit to their home after the final separation, when the police were summoned to the home. On the contrary, she averred that the incident occurred shortly after the entry of the court order for support; that when plaintiff came in he threatened to get even with defendant and throw her and the children out of the house for having procured the entry of the order; that when he refused to desist from further threats, defendant sent for the police in order to have him removed from the house.
As for plaintiff's allegation that defendant had caused him to be arrested on a charge of nonsupport immediately upon his discharge from the hospital, defendant alleged that the complaint had been filed against him before he was injured, and because of his disobedience of the court order for her support; that the matter was not set down for a hearing until after plaintiff's discharge from the hospital; and that notwithstanding the defense interposed by plaintiff on that occasion, the court, because of his previous defiance of its order, ordered him to be committed until he made payment of the amount in arrears under the order. She further averred, however, that plaintiff only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L v. N
...561(2-5).3 Campbell v. Campbell, Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 314, 319(6); Chapman v. Chapman, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 149, 151(3); Rusche v. Rusche, Mo.App., 200 S.W.2d 577, 580(2); Haushalter v. Haushalter, Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 703, 705(1); McGinley v. McGinley, Mo.App., 170 S.W.2d 938, 940(9); England......
-
Padgett v. Padgett
...to disregard them where its own consideration of the evidence impels the conclusion that such findings were erroneous. Rusche v. Rusche, Mo.App., 200 S.W.2d 577; Elliston v. Elliston, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 63; Taylor v. Taylor, Mo.App., 224 S.W.2d But where the oral evidence is in sharp confl......
-
Clemens v. Clemens
...manifesting innocent injury, and, as we are so persuaded and view the record, she was not entitled to a decree of divorce. Rusche v. Rusche, Mo.App., 200 S.W.2d 577; Hoffman v. Hoffman, Mo.App., 224 S.W.2d On the other hand, even though the husband is not without fault, Viertel v. Viertel, ......
-
Lambert v. Lambert
...no such situation here, for the whole case rests upon defendant's evidence. Elliston v. Elliston, Mo. App., 215 S.W.2d 63; Rusche v. Rusche, Mo.App., 200 S.W.2d 577; Charles v. Charles, Mo.App., 208 S.W.2d 476; Boudinier v. Boudinier, Mo.App., 203 S.W.2d The pleasure and benefit of friendly......