White v. White, 29408
| Decision Date | 15 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29408,29408 |
| Citation | 290 S.W.2d 178 |
| Parties | Edna Lucille WHITE (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. Clinton WHITE (Defendant), Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kenneth F. Summers and Harry R. Stocker, St. Louis, for appellant.
Charles E. Wells, St. Louis, for respondent.
In this divorce action the trial court, after consideration of the evidence, dismissed plaintiff's petition and defendant's cross bill. Defendant has appealed. Obviously his complaint is focused on the action of the trial court in dismissing his cross bill and denying him a divorce.
The parties were married on September 2, 1951. On May 23, 1951, plaintiff was divorced from a former husband. To that marriage one child was born, whose custody was placed in plaintiff. This was defendant's third marriage. Prior to the marriage of the parties, and on March 7, 1951, pursuant to an agreement by defendant to purchase a certain parcel of real estate in St. Louis, Missouri, a warranty deed was executed whereby the property was conveyed to Clinton White and Edna L. White, his wife.
It is difficult to determine when the final separation took place. Plaintiff said it was in June, 1954, whereas defendant testified it was on August 4th or 5th of that year. The petition for divorce was filed February 12, 1954, and therein plaintiff alleged the parties separated on January 10, 1954. We have determined that these discrepancies, which we are unable to reconcile, are of no particular significance in the determination of the question here presented.
Although plaintiff has not appealed we set out the substance of her testimony as it has a bearing on the vital question of whether defendant was the innocent party. Defendant constantly accused her of marrying him for his money; he told plaintiff he didn't want her and asked her to get out; the parties would quarrel until 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock in the morning; defendant refused to sleep with plaintiff all the time, and if they slept together defendant would get up and argue, 'he would start arguing and say I was crazy and possessed by the devil'. Defendant put plaintiff out of the house 'four, five or six times'. When plaintiff tried to get in her home, defendant refused to open the door. Defendant struck plaintiff once or twice. On one occasion defendant broke all of the light bulbs in their home. After plaintiff became pregnant, defendant said he wasn't the father of the child, and told plaintiff he 'wished I would die'. When the child was thirteen days old, defendant argued with plaintiff and threw the telephone at her. Plaintiff was forced to leave their home and baby and go to her mother's home because of defendant's treatment. The child had become ill from orange juice which plaintiff had given the baby. Defendant took the child to the Homer G. Phillips Hospital. The next day plaintiff called at the hospital for her baby.
Plaintiff was emphatic in stating defendant knew prior to marrying plaintiff that she had been married before, in fact, she said defendant gave her the money to procure the divorce. He also had full knowledge that plaintiff was the mother of a child by a former marriage. Plaintiff was positive that she took care of her household duties, did not stay away from home at nights except when she was locked out by the defendant, and did not drink intoxicating liquors or indulge in the use of profanity. Mrs. Earlene Williams, a teacher in the public schools of St. Louis, testified that about a week prior to the birth of the child she stopped at the home of the parties. Describing defendant's conduct, this witness stated:
Defendant told this witness plaintiff thought she was going to get something from him, 'but he would see her in hell before she got anything'.
There was a prior separation in 1952. Defendant testified there was a reconciliation on condition that plaintiff 'sign over everything to me, in my hands'. At that time defendant owned two pieces of property in St. Louis. On October 8, 1952, approximately the date the reconciliation was effected, plaintiff and defendant executed a deed conveying the property which had been deeded to them as husband and wife on March 7, 1951, to a disinterested third party, who in turn conveyed it to defendant. Title to both properties was in defendant at the time of the trial.
Defendant testified that he was ignorant of plaintiff's prior marriage, and that she was the mother of a child born of that marriage, until the night of the wedding. He also stated that plaintiff would stay away from home 'all night long', this began three weeks after the marriage; that when defendant would come home from work plaintiff was 'fixing to go out on the streets'; that plaintiff told defendant, 'I was a sucker for marrying her.' Respecting the charge that plaintiff associated with other men, defendant's chief complaint centered on May 10, 1954, when, on returning home from work, he found a man whom he knew to be an insurance agent in the bedroom. Another time he saw plaintiff in a car with a strange man. Additional testimony of the defendant was to the effect that plaintiff was extravagant and incurred debts on charge accounts without his knowledge; she was extremely quarrelsome and abusive; that 'many times' plaintiff told defendant she did not love him; that she drank intoxicating liquors to excess; that the night the baby was ill (referring to the time the child was thirteen days old), he called the police, and eventually took the baby to the hospital; plaintiff failed to keep the house and baby clean. Under cross-examination defendant admitted he locked his wife out of the home on two occasions, but denied he caused her to leave either time. He gave the detective permission to install a tape recorder in his home; denied paying for plaintiff's first divorce; and insisted he had faithfully and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. Spencer
...the evidence, we must depend in large measure upon the trial court. Mitchell v. Mitchell, Mo.App., 319 S.W.2d 906, 908; White v. White, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 178, 180-181; Eikermann v. Eikermann, Mo.App., 283 S.W.2d 391, 394[1, 2]. So far as the law is concerned, we find to particular series ......
-
Price v. Price, s. 7643
...credibility, the court of appeals would give due deference to the trial judge who saw and heard all of the witnesses. White v. White, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 178; Dietrich v. Dietrich, Mo.App., 294 S.W.2d 569; May v. May, Mo.App., 294 S.W.2d Plaintiff assigns as error the action of the trial co......
-
Parenteau v. Parenteau
...upon the credibility of witnesses, we must give due deference to the trial judge who saw and heard all of the witnesses. White v. White, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 178, 180; Eikermann v. Eikermann, Mo.App., 283 S.W.2d 391; Dietrich v. Dietrich, Mo.App., 294 S.W.2d 569, In the beginning we are conf......
-
Heibel v. Heibel, 31136
...May, Mo.App., 294 S.W.2d 627. We are to direct the entry or to enter such judgment as the trial court should have entered. White v. White, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 178. The evidence as to defendant's financial position is not in dispute and was largely given by the defendant himself. He has an i......