Walton v. Walton
Decision Date | 09 October 1885 |
Citation | 8 P. 110,34 Kan. 195 |
Parties | J. E. WALTON v. ELIZABETH WALTON |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Allen District Court.
ACTION for a divorce, brought by Elizabeth Walton against J. E Walton. April 22, 1884, decree for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
C. F Hutchings, for plaintiff in error.
G. P Smith, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This action was brought by Elizabeth Walton in the district court of Allen county, to obtain a divorce and alimony from her husband, J. E. Walton. The causes for divorce alleged in her petition were habitual drunkenness, gross neglect of duty, and extreme cruelty. The court tried the case without the intervention of a jury and found in favor of the plaintiff upon one ground, viz.: habitual drunkenness. Upon this ground the court found and stated the facts as follows:
As a conclusion of law, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on account of the habitual drunkenness of defendant, and so decreed. The defendant excepted to the findings of the court, and brings the case here for review.
The chief complaint he makes is, that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and are contrary to law. The testimony in regard to the intemperate habits of the defendant, and the degree of his indulgence in intoxicating drinks, is conflicting. The testimony of the plaintiff is to the effect that, with the exception of a short interval in 1881, the defendant has drank to excess and intoxication with great frequency ever since their marriage in 1874. It appears that they have always resided upon a farm and some distance away from any town; and she states that his practice, with a few exceptions, has been to get drunk as often as he went to town where liquor could be found; that he usually visited town as often as once a week, and some weeks he went there as often as two or three times. She testified that he not only came home intoxicated, but that he generally brought liquor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donahue v. The Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...and in the other negative, evidence. Brockway v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. 9 F. 249; Richards v. Richards, 19 Ill.App. 465; Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195, 8 P. 110; Dunlap v. Snyder, 17 Barb. 561; Boylan v. Meeker, N.J.L. 274. Ordinarily a witness who testifies affirmatively to a given fact i......
-
Melheim v. Melheim
...1173. The condition contemplated by the statute is the fixed habit of frequently drinking intoxicating liquors to excess. Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195, 8 P. 110; Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 134 So. 201. The indulgence must be so extensive that an enfeeble......
-
Frye v. Frye
...who commonly or frequently is drunk.' To the same effect, see Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 328; Magahay v. Magahay, 35 Mich. 210; Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195, 8 P. 110; Murphy v. People, 90 Ill. 59; Burns v. Burns, 13 Fla. 376; Mack v. Handy, 39 La.Ann. 497, 2 So. 181; Meathe v. Meathe, 83 Mic......
-
Leonard v. Leonard
...or frequently is drunk.’ To the same effect, see Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. [324] 328; Magahay v. Magahay, 35 Mich. 210; Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195, 8 P. 110; v. People, 90 Ill. 59; Burns v. Burns, 13 Fla. [369] 376; Mack v. Handy, 39 La.Ann. [491] 497, 2 So. 181; Meathe v. Meathe, 83 Mich.......