Ryan v. Ryan

• Citation: 137 S.W. 1014,156 Mo. App. 655
• Parties: RYAN v. RYAN.
• Decision Date: 29 May 1911
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

137 S.W. 1014

156 Mo. App. 655

RYAN v. RYAN.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 29, 1911.

1. DIVORCE (§ 286)—ALIMONY—ABILITY TO PAY—REVIEW.

The Court of Appeals is not disposed to disturb a finding as to a husband's ability to pay alimony, based on conflicting evidence.

2. DIVORCE (§ 39) — RIGHT TO — MOTIVE IN MARRYING.

That a wife married merely as a matter of convenience, without affection for her husband, does not affect the validity of the marriage or her right to a divorce.

3. DIVORCE (§ 132)—INDIGNITIES—EVIDENCE —SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence held to sustain findings that a husband rendered his wife's condition intolerable by indignities, and that she was innocent, entitling her to a divorce.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; Alex W. Waller, Judge.

Action by Henrietta E. Ryan against Lawrence J. Ryan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Eugene W. Nelson and Willard P. Cave, for appellant. J. W. Hays and M. J. Lilly, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

This is a suit for divorce. Plaintiff and defendant were married at New London, Mo., in May, 1905, and they lived together as man and wife until May, 1910. The plaintiff in her petition alleges "that defendant, wholly disregarding his duties as the husband of plaintiff, has been guilty of such gross, vile, ugly, indecent, and barbarous treatment toward this plaintiff as to render her condition intolerable, in this, to wit: That, prior to the marriage of plaintiff and defendant herein, defendant was formerly married, and of such marriage there were born and are now living three children now of the ages of 15, 13, and 8, respectively. That the above-named three children have been in the home, and plaintiff has cared for them and endeavored to raise them as though they were her own children. That commencing within a year of their marriage this defendant has continuously, and on the slightest provocation, and without any fault on the part of plaintiff whatever, assaulted plaintiff, and such assaults, as the years went by, became so frequent and violent that plaintiff feared for her life, and that, in addition to the various times that plaintiff has been assaulted by defendant, the defendant has applied to plaintiff the most venomous and ugly epithets known and used by the meanest, lowest, and most wicked men, such as `God damned bitch,' and `God damned whore,' and would use such language and apply the same to plaintiff in the presence of his children by a former marriage and their own child by their marriage. And that defendant would, and did on various occasions, use such language toward this plaintiff in the presence and hearing of other people." Other similar charges are made against defendant. The defendant in his answer denied all the allegations of said petition. The suit was begun in the Hannibal court of common pleas and was taken by change of venue to the circuit court of Randolph county. The court granted the prayer of plaintiff, decreed her absolute divorce from defendant, the care and custody of her infant child, $2,000 alimony in gross, $14 per month until January, 1911, for the support and maintenance of said minor child, after which time plaintiff was allowed $10 per month for support and maintenance of such child. Defendant appealed.

The plaintiff and defendant had never met before the day on which they were married. A short while before that time, plaintiff, who was working in Buffalo, N. Y., inserted an advertisement in a newspaper in St. Louis asking for a position as pianist. It was this advertisement which led to a correspondence by letter between the parties, which finally resulted in defendant sending money to plaintiff to defray her expenses to Hannibal, where they met and drove to New London and were married.

The plaintiff was questioned while testifying as follows: "Did you have any property of your own at the time you married him?" She answered: "No, sir; that is the reason I married him. I had been working and did not have a home, and this came so late in my life—I was 18 years old when I had to earn my own living." She stated that she did not love him at any time. According to her testimony, the defendant was a coarse, brutal man, and that he beat her within five months after their marriage; that he called her a bitch, whore, and chippy in the presence of their children and other persons; that he abused her almost daily and taught his eldest child to abuse and curse her; and that during the whole time of their married life she endeavored to do her duty as his wife.

The testimony of other witnesses was to the effect that defendant did not treat plaintiff with respect at his own home while in the presence of visitors, and on one occasion called her a "damn fool." On another occasion, when plaintiff and a lady witness on a visit from Ohio had gone to church on a Sunday evening and did not return until about 10 o'clock, defendant had the door locked and after some delay unlocked it and let them in. Some words of dispute were used, during which defendant abused plaintiff; that he put his feet on the center table and said he supposed they were out with other men.

A witness, who lived within a few feet of the parties on one occasion, heard a quarrel between them in which defendant called his wife a "God damn bitch"; that she did not see him hit her, but heard her scream. The evidence of other witnesses went to show that defendant was rude and unkind to plaintiff, and that he applied to her abusive language and treated her with contempt. Plaintiff proved a good reputation, that she was a refined woman, and that defendant's reputation for truth and veracity was bad.

The defendant's testimony went to show that his reputation for truth was good, and...