Sayles v. Sayles
| Decision Date | 05 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 5112.,5112. |
| Citation | 41 R.I. 170,103 A. 225 |
| Parties | SAYLES v. SAYLES. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Chester W. Barrows, Judge.
Divorce suit by Ethel D. Sayles against James P. Sayles. Petition granted, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted for further proceedings.
See, also, 99 A. 822, 100 Atl. 246.
James B. Littlefield, of Providence, for petitioner. Thomas Curran and Fitzgerald & Higgins, all of Providence, for respondent.
The petitioner filed her petition for divorce on July 11, 1916, and upon a hearing thereon in the superior court the same was denied. The petitioner then brought her bill of exceptions to this court, where, after hearing the parties and duly considering the questions presented, a new trial was granted. The conclusions of this court as expressed in its rescript granting a new trial may be found in 100 Atl. 246. The case was again heard in the superior court in April, 1917, the petition was granted on the ground of extreme cruelty, and the petitioner was awarded the custody of her children and alimony. The case is now before us upon the respondent's bill of exceptions. These exceptions are three in number. The first two relate to rulings of the court denying motions of the respondent to strike from the record certain questions and answers, and the third to the granting of the petition for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty.
The first exception relates to certain testimony of the petitioner as to some acts of personal violence on the part of the respondent's father which were committed in the presence of the respondent and apparently with his acquiescence and approval. The second exception deals with the testimony of the family doctor who testified that he attributed the impaired health of the petitioner to her home life which she had described to him. The trial court permitted this testimony to stand, not as hearsay, but as a part of the history of the case. We do not find any merit in these exceptions. Under the third exception the respondent argues that the decision of the trial court in granting a divorce to the petitioner on the ground of extreme cruelty was contrary to the law and the evidence in the case. He claims: (1) That the evidence is not sufficient to establish the charge of cruelty; and (2) that even assuming the alleged acts of cruelty to be proven the petitioner has, by her conduct, condoned the fault.
As this court said in its former decision, Sayles v. Sayles, 100 Atl. 246:
"It is the well-established practice of this court that we will not undertake to pass upon questions of fact, which are peculiarly within the province of the trial court, and reverse the decision of that court unless such decision is clearly wrong."
We think that the record discloses testimony sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that the respondent has been guilty of extreme cruelty, and therefore we cannot say that such finding is wrong.
As the respondent says in his brief, referring to the question of condonation, "We come now to the real and most important consideration involved in this case." It appears that the petitioner signed and made oath to her petition for divorce and for the custody of of her children on July 8, 1916; that the same was filed in court on July 11, 1916. The petitioner also filed on the same day, July 11, 1916, a petition for counsel fees, allowance for the support of herself and children, for the custody of her children, and for an injunction restraining the respondent from any interference with her or her children pending the hearing upon her petition for divorce. Citations were issued upon both petitions and were served the same day, July 11, 1916. The citation issued upon the lastmentioned petition notified the respondent that he might appear before the court on July 15, 1916, and show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted; such citation including an ex parte order awarding the petitioner the temporary custody of her children and enjoining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littlefield v. Littlefield
...the injured spouse in continuing to live temporarily in or return temporarily to the house of the offender.9 Sayles v. Sayles, 41 R.I. 170, 173, 103 A. 225, 226 (1918); Graves v. Graves, 123 Ind.App. 618, 621-622, 112 N.E.2d 869, 871 (1953).10 Hinds v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.......
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan
...of fact for the trial justice to find and such finding will not be disturbed by this court unless it is clearly wrong. Sayles v. Sayles, 41 R.I. 170, 103 A. 225. From our examination of the transcript we cannot say that the trial justice was clearly wrong in granting the petitioner a divorc......
-
Horton v. Horton
... ... marital relations, is not sufficient to constitute an ... intention to forgive the charged dereliction. Sayles v ... Sayles, 41 R.I. 170, 103 A. 225; Rudd v. Rudd, ... 66 Vt. 91, 28 A. 869; Toulson v. Toulson, 93 Md ... 754, 50 A. 401. The proof adduced ... ...
-
Horton v. Horton
...room, absent proof of marital relations, is not sufficient to constitute an intention to forgive the charged dereliction. Sayles v. Sayles, 41 R.I. 170, 103 A. 225; Rudd v. Rudd, 66 Vt. 91, 28 A. 869; Toulson v. Toulson, 93 Md. 754, 50 A. 401. The proof adduced here is not sufficient to sho......