Williams v. Williams, Civil 2931

• Citation: 291 P. 993,37 Ariz. 176
• Decision Date: 03 October 1930
• Docket Number: Civil 2931
• Parties: MATTIE L. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JOHN H. WILLIAMS, Appellee
• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona

291 P. 993

37 Ariz. 176

MATTIE L. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JOHN H. WILLIAMS, Appellee

Civil No. 2931

Supreme Court of Arizona

October 3, 1930

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Messrs Flanigan & Fields, for Appellant.

Mr. J J. Cox and Mr. O. B. De Camp, for Appellee.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

This is an action for divorce brought by John H. Williams against Mattie L. Williams, and, the plaintiff having obtained a decree dissolving the marital bonds, the defendant has appealed.

Their marriage was solemnized in July, 1912. This matrimonial venture was not their first. They both had been married before, and both had living children, issue of their former marriages. Just how long they lived with each other in peace and amity is not shown, but the records of this court disclose that some time prior to 1924 their relations, if ever harmonious and happy, had become intolerable.

A memorial of their troubles and sorrows first judicially exposed is found embalmed in 29 Ariz. 538, 243 P. 402. In this case the wife obtained a divorce a mensa et thoro and a decree ordering the husband to pay her for support one hundred dollars per month.

The next expose of their marital troubles is found in 33 Ariz. 367, 61 A.L.R. 1264, 265 P. 87, wherein the husband sought a divorce for desertion. The wife again succeeded on the ground that she could not be guilty of desertion while she was living apart from her husband under the divorce a mensa et thoro, because the judgment in such case sanctioned her refusal to become reconciled and to resume living with her husband.

In the present suit, the complaint, filed on June 28, 1929, charges the defendant wife with excesses, cruelty, and outrages to and towards the plaintiff husband. Among the acts of cruelty charged, we give but one, because it is upon it the judgment must be sustained, if at all. It is:

" . . . That the plaintiff now is and for many years prior to the time of filing this complaint has been a member of the Baptist Church, and has at all times conducted himself in a Christian-like manner; that the defendant herein has, by her conduct, continually ridiculed the plaintiff to other members of the Baptist Church, and by intimating and insinuating constantly to other members of the Baptist Church that the plaintiff is intimate with other women, has caused the plaintiff to be requested to refrain from attending the Baptist Church.

"That the acts of the defendant were for the purpose of harassing the said plaintiff; that said plaintiff herein is a man past sixty years of age; that plaintiff has been a devout member of said Baptist Church for a period of over forty years; . . . and said acts aforesaid, which caused the plaintiff to be barred from attending the Baptist Church, were without cause or provocation, and that said acts and conduct of the defendant have harassed and annoyed, and continue to harass and annoy the plaintiff, and have caused, and are causing him mental and physical pain and anguish, and have disturbed and is disturbing his peace of mind and injuring his health."

The defendant's answer consisted of a denial of the allegations of cruelty and a statement of the fact that she had obtained favorable judgments in both of the former actions between them.

Trial was had before the court, and resulted in a decree dissolving the marital bonds, upon the ground of the defendant's cruelty to the plaintiff.

Upon the request of defendant, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. Such findings and conclusions, so far as material, are as follows:

"That the plaintiff has been a member of the Baptist Church for forty years; that the defendant circulated anonymous letters concerning the plaintiff and detailed their contents to members of the Baptist Church, of which both plaintiff and defendant are members, and, also, to people who were not members of said Baptist Church; that said anonymous letters were of such a nature as to reflect upon the moral character of plaintiff and would tend to cause those in whose hands she placed them and to whom she detailed their contents, to hold plaintiff in contempt.

"That such conduct was for the purpose of ridiculing the plaintiff and intimating that plaintiff was intimate with other women.

"That by reason of such conduct on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff was requested to refrain from attending the Baptist Church. . . .

"That all of said conduct on the part of the defendant has harassed and annoyed the plaintiff and has caused him mental and physical pain and anguish."

"As the conclusion of law of (fro...