Wetherington v. Wetherington
Decision Date | 11 May 1909 |
Parties | WETHERINGTON v. WETHERINGTON. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Joseph B. Wall Judge.
Bill by Mary A. Wetherington against Berry Wetherington for divorce. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
"Extreme cruelty' by defendant to complainant,' which constitutes one of the grounds for divorce under section 1928 of the General Statutes of 1906, and which may be sufficient to warrant a court in granting a divorce, not only refers to and means physical or bodily injuries, but includes as well such conduct of husband or wife as would cause the other continuous and intense mental suffering and danger to health. What conduct will reach the requirements of the rule must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Where a husband falsely accuses his wife with want of virtue, having sexual intercourse with another man from whom she had contracted a loathsome venereal disease, and persists in making such false accusation, it may constitute such extreme cruelty as to be sufficient ground for divorce.
Where the evidence is sufficient to warrant a decree of divorce and the awarding of alimony to the wife, an appellate court will not disturb such decree because of conflicts in the evidence.
Macfarland & Davis, for appellant.
This is a suit for divorce and alimony, instituted by the appellee, as complainant, against the appellant, as defendant. The amended bill, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
'Your oratrix further represents unto your honor that, on the day following the separation of your oratrix from the defendant, the brother of your oratrix, with whom your oratrix was then living, went to see the defendant concerning the trouble between your oratrix and the defendant; that the defendant then and there, as your oratrix is informed and believes, and so avers to be true, again charged your oratrix with infidelity to her marriage vows, and with having committed the crime of adultery with the said William Mack Terell, and, although he failed and refused to disclose to your oratrix's said brother the evidence on which he based this terrible charge against your oratrix, reiterated to him his belief that said charges were true; that on the 24th day of July, 1907, and three days following the separation of your oratrix from the defendant, the defendant wrote to your oratrix, and again intimated that your oratrix had the same loathsome disease he had previously charged your oratrix with having, and in said note so written to your oratrix particularly charged the same to be true, and demanded that your oratrix should submit herself to the examination of their family physician in order to ascertain if the same was true, and in said note declared that unless your oratrix did so he would have the same done himself; that although your oratrix realized that the defendant had no such power as he claimed of forcing her to submit to such an examination, yet being desirous that her good name should be cleared of all imputation of such a charge, she immediately went to the office of Dr. H. J. Hampton, in the city of Tampa, Fla., the family physician of your oratrix and the defendant's family; that she there met the defendant, who was present during the entire examination, and at his request, made as above, submitted herself to a physical examination by said physician; that said physician, after so examining your oratrix, declared, and then and there certified, that your oratrix was not suffering from any loathsome or venereal disease, or ever had been in such condition.
'Your oratrix further represents unto your honor that, after leaving the office of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Henry, Ins. Com'r v. Donovan
-
Chaachou v. Chaachou, 31164
...charge of lewd and lascivious conduct on the part of the wife amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment. See also Wetherington v. Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 So. 549, holding that a husband's false charges of adultery may constitute extreme For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that ......
- Baker v. Baker
-
Hayes v. Hayes
... ... Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 ... So. 923; Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Fla. 680, 45 So ... 1020, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 670; Wetherington v ... Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 So. 549; Prall v ... Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 577; Rowe v. Rowe, 84 Kan. 696, ... ...