Ryan v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 10 January 1928
• Docket Number: No. 20063.,20063.
• Citation: 300 S.W. 1046
• Parties: RYAN v. RYAN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

300 S.W. 1046

RYAN v. RYAN.

No. 20063.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

January 10, 1928.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; H. A. Hamilton, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by John E. Ryan against Ruth R. Ryan for divorce. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

William Kane, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Duggan & Oliver, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

The husband sued for divorce on the ground that his wife had been guilty of such indignities as to render his condition intolerable. The wife filed no crossbill, but contented herself with an answer admitting the marriage and denying each and every other allegation set out in plaintiff's petition. The record discloses that the wife contested the suit below, which resulted in a decree of divorce for husband, and the wife in due course brings this appeal.

But two points are presented for review: First that the decree entered below is not supported by the evidence; second, that certain evidence relating to alleged threats of the wife to kill the husband, made in the absence of any third person, were erroneously admitted.

The rule is well settled that in divorce proceedings it becomes our duty, on appeal, to examine the record for ourselves and determine the very right of the case as we see it from the evidence. We therefore necessarily review the entire record, disregarding any admitted testimony which in our view is incompetent, and rendering such judgment as in equity and good conscience, under our statutes, the pleadings and evidence may authorize.

No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what will constitute indignities sufficient to entitle one to a decree of divorce under our statutes. Whether certain acts and conduct constitute such indignities may well be said to depend upon the facts and circumstances in each particular case. Many and various are the expressions to be found in the adjudicated cases as to just what character of bar dignities, measured by our divorce law, will authorize a decree, yet there is a unanimity of opinion that indignities will be held to be intolerable in a statutory sense, where they are tantamount to a species of mental cruelty.

A reading of the record before us has brought us to the view that the conclusion of the trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is correct, and that the husband is entitled to his decree of divorce.

The record discloses that plaintiff and defendant were married in the city of St. Louis on July 2, 1924, and that they separated February 24, 1925. He was a printer, working for one of the daily newspapers, and she was in the employ of a telegraph company. They had known each other four or five years prior to their marriage, during which period of time they had seen much of each other. Plaintiff's mother gave them $200 as a wedding present, which the young couple utilized for a honeymoon trip, spending a week in Chicago. The wife insisted that the trip be continued for a second week. When the husband explained that their finances would not permit of this, she became petulant and dissatisfied. On their return to St. Louis they installed themselves in an efficiency apartment in a respectable residential section of the city. The wife, however, was not satisfied and continually kept insisting that they move to a more expensive place.

From the testimony in the record we are constrained to the view that the wife, throughout the period of time that she lived with her husband on innumerable occasions, displayed an ungovernable temper. According to the respondent's testimony, it was almost a daily occurrence for the wife, over some trivial matter, to become angry, lose her temper and slap him, or kick him in the shins. On one occasion, when he came home a few minutes after the time he had agreed to, she seized the newspaper which he had in his hand and tore it in pieces, picked up a "hot plate" made out of cork and broke it in pieces over his head. On another occasion, one morning in the latter part of November, 1924, the wife, who was already dressed, became displeased over something while the husband was dressing, lost her temper, took off her slipper, and struck him in the eye with the heel of the slipper, which left a mark on the eye, which for several days subjected the husband to embarrassment from the comments of the various employees at the newspaper where the husband worked.

That the wife had an ungovernable temper and struck plaintiff was corroborated by the witness, Mrs. Nellie Burke, who testified that she had known the wife for a period of about three years before her marriage, and that after the marriage, on one...