Szulc v. Szulc
| Decision Date | 04 April 1950 |
| Citation | 96 N.H. 190,72 A.2d 500 |
| Parties | SZULC v. SZULC. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
McLane, Davis, Carleton & Graf, Manchester, for libelant.
Chretien & Craig and James A. Manning, Manchester, for libelee.
While the testimony of the parties and their witnesses are in conflict, there is abundant evidence upon which the Court could find that libelee's drinking habits were the major cause of the eventual separation of the parties. Prior to the present proceeding the libelant had instituted a libel for divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness but a reconciliation was effected when the libelee promised to stop drinking and the libel was dismissed. Thereafter the libelee, pursuant to his doctor's advice, 'cut down for a while' but this advice, as well as that from a voluntary temperance organization, was heeded only a short time.
Although the libelee was industrious and drinking did not affect his employment, it caused the libelant much distress at home because it aggravated the libelee's condition of enuresis. There was also evidence that the libelee, when drinking, used abusive and profane language toward the libelant and prevented her from sleeping. As a result of this condition and conduct the libelant lost considerable weight, became tired and nervous and was a 'complete wreck.' This was evidence upon which the Trial Court could find treatment seriously injurious to health. R.L. c. 339, § 6, subd. V; Geers v. Geers, 95 N.H. 316, 63 A.2d 244. 'Divorce is not punishment of the offender, but relief to the sufferer.' Robinson v. Robinson, 66 N.H. 600, 610, 23 A. 362, 365, 15 L.R.A. 121, 49 Am.St.Rep. 632.
The libelant's testimony is attacked as unbelievable. It is true that the description of her husband's sins of commission were usually prefaced with a firm 'always' and his sins of omission with an emphatic 'never.' It would be difficult and probably unwise to attempt to determine from the cold printed record whether this was a feminine manner of speech, an exaggeration or a misstatement. Such determination in domestic relations cases are peculiarly within the province of the Trial Court who has the superior opportunity to observe and hear the testimony of the witnesses. Ballou v. Ballou, 95 N.H. 105, 58 A.2d 311. A statement of fact may be true even though its extent may be exaggerated. The Presiding Justice was as free to accept one part of the testimony and reject the other, Webster v. Webster, 95 N.H. 416, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Henry
...counseling); Morgan v. Morgan, 101 N.H. 470, 471, 146 A.2d 585 (1958) (wife became “highly nervous” and lost weight); Szulc v. Szulc, 96 N.H. 190, 191, 72 A.2d 500 (1950) (wife lost considerable weight and became “a complete wreck” (quotation omitted)). Given the severity of the petitioner'......
-
Stephenson v. Stephenson
...health of the libelant. This presents the limited question of whether there was evidence to support the court's decree. Szulc v. Szulc, 96 N.H. 190, 72 A.2d 500 (1950); Buck v. Buck, 97 N.H. 178, 83 A.2d 922 (1951); Kuo v. Kuo, 108 N.H. 460, 237 A.2d 690 (1968). In contesting the granting o......
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...of the doctors, that the findings and rulings of the Trial Court were warranted. Buck v. Buck, 97 N.H. 178, 83 A.2d 922; Szulc v. Szulc, 96 N.H. 190, 72 A.2d 500. The libelee further claims that the marriage was invalid. This contention requires little discussion. RSA 458:13 provides that t......
-
Jeanson v. Jeanson
...basis upon which the Presiding Justice could make the decree that he did. Franklyn v. Franklyn, 93 N.H. 90, 35 A.2d 801; Szulc v. Szulc, 96 N.H. 190, 72 A.2d 500. The Trial Court was free to reject the husband's testimony that his wife abandoned him 'without sufficient cause'. R. L. c. 339,......