Sherman v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 29 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 7640.,7640. |
| Parties | SHERMAN v. SHERMAN. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alexander L. Churchill, Judge.
Action by Isadore H. Sherman against Charles C. Sherman. To review an order denying and dismissing her petition for divorce from bed and board, petitioner brings a bill of exceptions.
Exception overruled, and case remitted.
Walter I. Sundlun and Baker & Spicer, all of Providence, for petitioner.
Edward W. Day, of Providence, for respondent.
The petitioner has brought her bill of exceptions to this court to review the decision of the trial justice of the superior court denying and dismissing her petition for divorce from bed and board. She contends that said decision is against the weight of the evidence. That is her sole exception.
The petition alleges, as grounds for divorce, neglect to provide and extreme cruelty. The trial justice found that there was not such neglect to provide as to bring it within the period mentioned in the statute (Gen.Laws 1923, c. 291, § 2), namely, one year next prior to the filing of the petition. The petition was filed on May 7, 1934. Petitioner left her husband's home in July, 1933. Plainly, unless there was neglect to provide during the time she was living with her husband, the period of time between these dates was insufficient to meet the requirements of the statute.
The petitioner attempted to show by her own testimony and that of witnesses that she was insufficiently provided with food and shelter, while living with her husband, for a considerable time before July, 1933. We have read the testimony on this ground, and we are of the opinion that the trial justice was fully warranted in reaching the conclusion that the evidence of the petitioner did not prove her allegation.
In support of the ground of extreme cruelty, the petitioner offered testimony of several alleged acts of violence and further relied upon the evidence of insufficient food and shelter. As to the latter testimony, she urged that it showed a continuous course of conduct toward her on the part of her husband strongly indicating cruel treatment intended to drive her from his home. Without discussing any of this testimony, suffice it to say that we have carefully considered it and that we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial justice. The testimony was peculiarly of the kind and nature that can best be weighed and considered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial