Veal v. Veal

• Decision Date: 12 February 1917
• Docket Number: 22155
• Citation: 140 La. 879,74 So. 181
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: VEAL v. VEAL

74 So. 181

140 La. 879

VEAL v. VEAL

No. 22155

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 12, 1917

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

There is no unqualified rule in the jurisprudence of Louisiana that only one instance of cruel treatment of the wife by the husband is not a sufficient cause for her to obtain a decree of separation from bed and board. Her right to the decree on that ground depends upon whether the cruel treatment was of such a nature as to render her living with her husband intolerable or insupportable. In the determination of that question the court will consider not only the nature and extent of the cruel treatment, but the character and mode of living of the wife and whether there was provocation for the ill treatment.

Solomon Wolff, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Edgar M. Cahn, of New Orleans, for appellee.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment denying her a decree of separation from bed and board.

Her demand is based upon the allegation that her husband defamed her and was guilty of such outrages and cruel treatment of her as to render their living together insupportable.

She alleged in her petition that during the nine years of their married life she had conducted herself properly, had done everything in her power to make the home comfortable and happy, and had not given her husband any cause or provocation for ill treatment. In a supplemental petition she referred particularly to an occurrence on the 24th of July, 1914 when, as she alleged, the defendant abused and struck her.

In his answer the defendant denied that he had ever struck or abused the plaintiff or had been guilty of any outrages or cruel treatment towards her; and he denied her allegations that she had always conducted herself properly, had done everything in her power to make the home comfortable and happy, and had not given him cause or provocation for ill treatment.

The case was tried before the passage of the Act No. 157 of 1916, permitting the husband and wife to testify for or against one another; hence we have not the testimony of either of them.

The only witness to the quarrel on the 24th of July, 1914, was the plaintiff's sister, Miss Marie Tatum, who resided in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Veal. She testified that she was there when they returned home quarreling, at about 6:30 that afternoon. When the witness opened the door for them, she heard the plaintiff say to her husband:

'I don't think I will ever speak to you again, because I never get a kind word from you.'

Thereafter the plaintiff went on the porch where her husband was and asked him to come in to dinner. He remained on the porch, and, when the plaintiff went out again and asked him to dinner, he cursed her. When the witness and the plaintiff had dined and cleared off the table, Mr. Veal came in and told his wife he was going out that night. The witness also had an engagement to go out that night. Being afraid or unwilling to remain alone in the house, the plaintiff said to her husband:

'Garland, I am going up to see some friends, because you said you wouldn't be here, and I can't be left alone in the house.'

He cursed her and replied that he presumed she was going out with some man. To which she replied:

'No; you can accuse me of anything else, but not of anything of that kind. From now on you get your lawyer and I will get mine.'

She went upstairs very nervous and excited, where her husband followed her and the quarrel continued. Again cursing her, and saying he would end it all, he grabbed his wife by the throat and threw her into the corner of the room. The witness took hold of him and pulled him off of his wife. Continuing his crusing he left the room, and the witness immediately locked the door. He tried to re-enter the room, and the witness screamed 'Murder!' The plaintiff had fallen back into a chair, exhausted from the violence inflicted upon her. The witness then went to the window and called to a woman living next door to come to her assistance. The neighbor came immediately, and Mr. Veal then left the house. The plaintiff remained in the same house with Mr. Veal six days after that occurrence, but there was no reconciliation between them.

The neighbor who was called to the assistance of the plaintiff by Miss Tatum corroborated the latter's testimony. She said she heard a terrible scream, and her children asked her what it was. She said she thought it was some bad boys in the street. Then she heard her name called; and, going to the window, she recognized the voice of Miss Tatum, appealing to her to 'please come over.' Responding to the call, she met Mr. Veal as he was leaving the house, and asked if his wife was sick. He invited her in, telling her that the ladies were upstairs, and he immediately left.

The only testimony offered to contradict that of Miss Tatum and of the neighbor who responded to her call was that of another neighbor, who testified that he was at his home on the night of the occurrence in question, and did not hear the screaming or anything of the difficulty. He admitted, however, that Mr. Veal told him of the incident the next morning; and he admitted that it was possible for the lady next door to the Veal home to have heard the screaming without his hearing it. His residence and the Veal residence were situated back to back, facing in opposite directions, on parallel streets. The residence of the neighbor who responded to the call of Miss Tatum was beside the Veal home. It is not improbable that the neighbor whose window was opposite that of the room in which the difficulty occurred heard the screams of Miss Tatum, and that the neighbor whose house fronted in an opposite direction could not hear the screams, although the latter house was nearer.

The witness last referred to testified that he was well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Veal and had never observed any ill treatment of the plaintiff by her husband or quarreling between them.

Two other witnesses on behalf of the defendant testified that they were well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Veal and exchanged visits with them, but had never observed any disagreement between them. One of them, who lived a mile away from the Veal residence, was asked by the defendant's counsel whether he had heard any cries on the night of July 24, 1914, and replied that he did not hear them until a week after, from which we assume there were some echoes of the occurrence.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff is a lady of culture and refinement, and it is not at all strange that her unhappy domestic relations were not made known even to her most intimate friends. Her sister, Miss Tatum, testified that she did not know there was any domestic trouble between the plaintiff and defendant until she resided in their home, and was then very much surprised to learn of the unhappiness of her sister. In this connection the defendant's failure to offer any evidence in support of his specific denial that the plaintiff had always conducted herself properly, and that she had not...