Stibbs v. Stibbs
Decision Date | 14 November 1950 |
Docket Number | 31404. |
Citation | 37 Wn.2d 377,223 P.2d 841 |
Parties | STIBBS, v. STIBBS. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
McMicken Rupp & Schweppe, Mary Ellen Krug, and Grace O. Dailey, all of Seattle, for appellant.
Kahin Carmody & Horswill, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action for separate maintenance. The parties separate in February 1948, and this suit was commenced the following October. The complaint was based, largely, upon the allegation that the defendant had become enamoured of a former employee, and that he devoted all his time and attention to her. The defendant denied this in his answer. At the trial, evidence was introduced by deposition and by direct testimony in support of both sides of this issue. Plaintiff's chief witnesses were the former employee's husband, Mr Hill, and his sister and brother-in-law. Their testimony was that they had seen the defendant's car parked in front of Mrs. Hill's residence in Vancouver, B. C., on Saturday morning, September 18, 1948, at about 2:30 a. m., again at one o'clock p. m., and later at ten o'clock p. m. The car was identified by its license number and make. Some of the relatives had seen Mrs. Hill and the defendant riding in the car the same day. The car was also seen, in front of the house, on the following day, Sunday the 19th, and the defendant could be observed in the living room through the window.
The defendant was asked where he had been on the dates in question, and he testified that he had been i Chicago attending a dental convention, that he had left Seattle in the company of a doctor friend on September 9, 1948, and had returned to Seattle on the morning of September 20th. This testimony was corroborated in great detail by his friend and his wife. The effect of this alibi is reflected in the following quotation from the trial court's decision:
The trial court found for the defendant and dismissed the action. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the statutory ground of newly discovered evidence based upon the affidavits of officials of the Northwest Airlines, Inc. Its records show that the defendant and his friend arrived in Seattle by plane from the east at 10:23 a. m., September 17, 1948. This refutes defendant's alibi. The wealth of detail in support of the alibi, which was so convincing to the trial court, is not compatible with mere inadvertence or faulty memory, but, rather, supports an inference of fabrication. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and the order overruling the motion for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pardee v. Jolly
...its discretion in denying Jolly's motion for a new trial, it should have remanded the case for a new trial. See Stibbs v. Stibbs, 37 Wash.2d 377, 379, 223 P.2d 841 (1950); Kurtz v. Fels, 63 Wash.2d 871, 878, 389 P.2d 659 (1964). The Court of Appeals could not, however, examine the evidence ......
-
Bowker v. McDonald
...v. Schuller, 1955, 47 Wash.2d 520, 524, 288 P.2d 475; Paddock v. Todd, 1950, 37 Wash.2d 711, 721, 225 P.2d 876; Stibbs v. Stibbs, 1950, 37 Wash.2d 377, 379, 223 P.2d 841. The only reason this evidence was not available for use at the time of trial is that the insurance company, which had as......
-
Thomason v. Stennes
... ... The new ... evidence relied on in seeking a new trial must be material to ... the issue of the case. Stibbs v. Stibbs , 37 Wn.2d ... 377, 379, 223 P.2d 841 (1950) (citing Ulbright v ... Hageman , 181 Wash. 706, 708, 44 P.2d 196 (1935) ... ...
-
Thomason v. Stennes
...however. Materiality The new evidence relied on in seeking a new trial must be material to the issue of the case. Stibbs v. Stibbs, 37 Wn.2d 377, 379, 223 P.2d 841 (1950) (citing Ulbright v. Hageman, 181 Wash. 706, 708, 44 P.2d 196 (1935) (evidence must be "material to the issue involved"))......