Weinbaum v. Weinbaum, 9427
| Decision Date | 12 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 9427,9427 |
| Parties | WEINBAUM v. WEINBAUM. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
J. Joseph Nugent, Jr., Raymond A. Thomas, Providence, for petitioner.
Nathan Perlman, Harold W. Demopulos, Providence, for respondent.
This is a petition for divorce brought by the wife on the grounds of extreme cruelty and neglect to provide. At the trial in the superior court she expressly waived the ground of cruelty. The trial justice found that she had failed to prove the ground of neglect to provide and denied and dismissed her petition. The case is here on her bill of exceptions containing only an exception to that decision.
The petitioner testified that respondent had neglected to provide for her support for the period of one year next before the filing of her petition on October 21, 1952. The respondent admitted on the witness stand that he had not supported her during such period. However, he defended his conduct on three grounds: First, that for good consideration his wife had renounced her right to claim such support; second, that she had ordered him out of their house without just cause; and third, that in any event he was not able to support her.
The trial justice expressly found that there was no agreement which would support the respondent's first ground; that his other two grounds were amply supported by the evidence; and that petitioner, in any event, had utterly failed to prove her charge against respondent. He reached these conclusions largely on the basis of credibility. In his decision he stated that the reasons given by petitioner for ousting respondent from his home 'were not credibly and convincingly proved'; that the testimony of her witness 'was not impressive'; that it left his 'mind * * * in grave doubt as to its truthfulness'; and that her entire case was 'strongly suggestive of outside interference.' He further stated that the demeanor of her witnesses as well as the indefinite or at times inaccurate statements of petitioner herself played a strong part in leading him to that conclusion. On the other hand he said that respondent impressed him favorably, except for his testimony that there was an agreement in which petitioner waived her right to support. 'My personal appraisal of him as a witness,' the trial justice said in his decision, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pezza v. Pezza
...123, the court stated the rule as follows: 'Ordinarily the decision of a trial justice on credibility is conclusive, Weinbaum v. Weinbaum, 81 R.I. 375, 103 A.2d 226, and will not be disturbed by this court unless he has misconceived or overlooked important evidence or there is a clear indic......
-
Browning v. Browning, 9976
...within the purview of the rule thus stated. In such circumstances we will not disturb the decision of the trial justice. Weinbaum v. Weinbaum, 81 R.I. 375, 103 A.2d 226. Because of conclusion which we have reached on the issue of extreme cruelty, it is unnecessary to consider the respondent......
-
Krall v. M. A. Gammino Const. Co., 10569
...the trial justice chose to believe plaintiff. Ordinarily the decision of a trial justice on credibility is conclusive, Weinbaum v. Weinbaum, 81 R.I. 375, 103 A.2d 226, and will not be disturbed by this court unless he has misconceived or overlooked important evidence or there is a clear ind......
-
Gesualdi v. Miranda
...raise questions of credibility which are left to the determination of the trial justice sitting without a jury. See Weinbaum v. Weinbaum, 81 R.I. 375, 377, 103 A.2d 226, 227. It is on the contradictory testimony that the trial justice drew inferences and conclusions to arrive at his In Boyd......