Tarrant v. Tarrant

• Decision Date: 02 May 1911
• Parties: TARRANT v. TARRANT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

137 S.W. 56

156 Mo. App. 725

TARRANT v. TARRANT.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 2, 1911.

1. DIVORCE (§ 22) — GROUNDS — "HABITUAL DRUNKARD.

One is an habitual drunkard within the law making habitual drunkenness for one year ground for divorce who has a fixed and irresistible habit of drunkenness, having by frequent indulgence lost the power to control his appetite, and it is not necessary that he be continually drunk or that his drunkenness incapacitate him for work; for a man may be an habitual drunkard, and yet be sober for days and weeks.

2. DIVORCE (§ 37)—GROUNDS — DESERTION— WHAT CONSTITUTES.

Where a wife had for more than 16 months been subjected to her husband's habitual drunkenness and the evil consequences of that habit, she was not guilty of desertion in refusing to abide with him or see him when he called; for, to constitute desertion, her leaving him must be without reasonable cause.

3. DIVORCE (§ 22)—GROUNDS—DRUNKENNESS —CONDONATION.

Where a husband, who for more than the statutory period had been an habitual drunkard, overcame the habit after his wife had filed a suit for divorce and the wife did not condone his previous conduct, her right to a divorce is unimpaired.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1054)—REVIEW— HARMLESS ERROR.

In an action for divorce, being in equity, where the court on voir dire examination of an incompetent witness elicited incompetent testimony as to facts otherwise fully proved by competent testimony, the error will be considered harmless.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William M. Kinsey, Judge.

Action by Frieda Werth Tarrant against William P. Tarrant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Pearce, Davis & Curlee, for appellant. H. A. Loevy, for respondent.

CAULFIELD, J.

This is a suit for divorce by the wife against the husband. The only cause alleged which we need notice is that the defendant had been addicted to habitual drunkenness for the space of one year. The circuit court granted plaintiff a divorce, and defendant has appealed.

1. The defendant contends that the evidence does not sustain the charge of habitual drunkenness for the space of one year. We do not agree with him in this contention.

The parties were married June 19, 1903, and immediately removed to Philadelphia, the home of the defendant. About January 1, 1904, defendant commenced to drink, and drank every day, and was drunk once or twice a week until November, 1904. Plaintiff then came with her husband's consent on a visit to her parents in St. Louis, bringing her nursing infant with her. This visit was prolonged at defendant's repeated requests until July 31, 1905. There is no evidence of defendant's having been drunk during this nine-month period of separation. But after plaintiff's return to Philadelphia and during four months—that is, from the last of July, 1905, to the last of November, 1905—he drank continuously and got drunk eight times. Then the couple conceived the idea of going to California, and on the last of November, 1905, started for Los Angeles via St. Louis. They arrived here Friday, December 1, 1905, and were met at the station by the plaintiff's family. The defendant was in a drunken condition when they arrived. They went to the home of plaintiff's parents; it having been determined that they should have a two weeks visit with them. This two weeks visit culminated in an abandonment of the California trip and a determination on the part of the couple to make their home in St. Louis. At this time the parties had one child, and plaintiff was pregnant with another. The defendant stayed at the home of the plaintiff's parents for two months, or until the latter part of January, 1906. During this time he was morose and under the influence of liquor a great deal, and came home drunk several times, and stayed out all night on three or four occasions. He was paying no board, and his wife's mother, feeling that, if he had money to spend for drink, he should pay something for the keep of himself and family, suggested that he pay $50 per month. He said that he could not do that at present, as he was just establishing himself in his business as a law stenographer, and asked if it would be satisfactory if he got board elsewhere for himself alone. Upon her answering affirmatively, he told his wife of the interview with her mother, and that he was going to leave the house, and asked her to pack his grip. She did so and he left, taking up his quarters elsewhere in the city. After he left the house, he came back several times drunk. The second child was born on July 31, 1906, and from then until June 19, 1907, defendant testified, was his worst period of drunkenness. Between those dates at different periods he had two physicians treat him for the drink habit, but without favorable effect. On June 4, 1907, he came to the house drunk and smashed the glass panel of the door in an effort to get in. He was arrested, and the next morning was fined by a police magistrate. His fine was stayed at the request of plaintiff's parents, upon his taking a pledge to abstain from intoxicating liquor for one year. He was then taken to the home of plaintiff's parents, and was permitted to resume calling upon his wife and children in the evenings. He stayed sober for five or six weeks under this pledge, and then commenced to drink again. In October, 1907, he went on a spree which lasted about a week. He admits that he was drunk again in November. On Christmas day he got drunk and stayed drunk all week. From that time until the filing of the petition on May 9, 1908, he denies that he was drunk. When the petition was filed, he went on a spree which lasted up to July, 1908. His business friends then persuaded him to go to an institution for the cure of drunkenness, raising a fund by subscription for that purpose. He now appears to be cured of his habit. It appears from the evidence that the defendant never let his work suffer through his weakness, but he was down at business every day excepting the few times mentioned when he was off upon a prolonged spree. His drunkenness occurred at night and usually at the end of the week, so that he could rest over Sunday. It was accompanied by moroseness and abusiveness and distressing scenes and occurrences which we need not set forth.

There are 386 pages of printed record in this case, and, of course, the foregoing is but a brief...