Sweet v. Sweet

• Decision Date: 27 March 1920
• Citation: 109 A. 379
• Parties: SWEET v. SWEET.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

109 A. 379

SWEET

v. SWEET.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 27, 1920.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Cumber land County, at law.

Libel for divorce by Edith M. Sweet against Robert J. Sweet. Decree for libelant, and libelee excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

F. W. Hinckley, of Portland, for libelant.

H. E. Nixon, of Portland, for libelee.

MORRILL, J. The libelant has obtained a decree of divorce from the bonds of matrimony between herself and the libelee, for the cause of extreme cruelty. The libelee offered no evidence; his motion that the libel be dismissed was overruled and a decree in favor of the libelant entered; to this ruling and decree the libelee has exceptions.

The question is thus presented whether, as a matter of law, the evidence, which is made a part of the bill of exceptions, warrants the decree. We do not hesitate to say that it does.

After an unhappy married life of about 18 years, the troubles of the parties culminated in 1917. The evidence shows personal violence inflicted upon the libelant by the libelee in February or March of that year of a nature constituting extreme cruelty. If their later cohabitation until September of that year was a condonation of his cruelty, it was upon the condition, express or implied, of good behavior on his part and kind treatment of her.

In September, at the time of their final separation, her testimony shows that he knocked her down, tried to push her upon a hot stove, and left a bruise over her eye.

It is true that her testimony as to the occurrences in February or March is alone corroborated; but the rule of not granting a divorce upon the uncorroborated testimony of the libelant is a rule of practice, and not an inflexible rule of law. The libelant was a competent witness, and there is no rule of law to prevent a finding of fact solely upon her testimony, if her credibility is established to the satisfaction of the presiding justice. Robbins v. Robbins, 100 Mass. 150, 97 Am. Dec. 91.

Exceptions overruled.