Wills v. Wills.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 2523.,2523. |
| Citation | 74 W.Va. 709 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Wills v. Wills. |
Uniform and continued discourtesy of one spouse to the other, manifested in various ways, such as denial of social intercourse, coolness of manner, disavowal of love, expression of hatred and refusal of company at church and elsewhere, while both reside together, the husband providing support and the wife performing the ordinary household duties, is not alone ground for divorce, (p. 710).
Nor is such discourtesy combined with exclusion of the husband from access to the wife's bed and refusal of sexual intercourse, while the marriage relation remains otherwise unimpaired, ground of divorce, (p. 710).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County. Suit for divorce by George A. Willis against Nancy V. Willis. From decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and bill dismissed.
John W. Arbuckle, for appellant. A. Meadows, for appellee.
poffenbarger, judge:
The decree of absolute divorce in this cause, from which an appeal has been taken, is founded upon evidence proving or tending to prove the following facts:
The parties were married September the 9th, 1880, and have ever since resided together and continue to do so. Unto them, have been born seven children, all of whom except two are above the age of twenty one years and away from home, doing for themselves. The two remaining at home were, at the time of the filing of the bill, eleven and nineteen years old, respectively. Since the date of the birth of the last child, the wife's conduct and demeanor toward her husband have been radically different from her former attitude toward him. Although she has remained under his roof, taken care of the children, done the housework, cooking, mending and washing and presided at the table, just as she had previously performed these services, she has uniformly and persistently denied her husband all social intercourse as well as access to her bed. Visitors at the house, as well as members of the family, say she treats him coldly and snappishly in their presence and does not demean herself toward him as wives usually and ordinarily treat their husbands. She refuses to accompany him to church or elsewhere and passes him on the road without recognition. She has repeatedly declared she does not love him and never can and hates him, and says she wants a man she can love and of whom she would not be ashamed. The husband establishes his good character and proves his repeated and persistent efforts to effect a reconciliation with her. The ministers and members of the religious society to which both belonged have used every possible effort to reconcile them but without avail. They finally severed the wife's membership in the church on account of her conduct toward her husband.
These charges supported by evidence are not admitted by the defendant. On the contrary she denies many of them and has endeavored to refute them by her own testimony and that of other witnesses. She would justify her denial of his privilege of access to her bed upon two grounds, (1) a false accusation by him as to the paternity of her last child, made some time before its birth, and (2) her inability by reason of a cancerous affliction, to afford the privilege of intercourse, without injury and pain. A short time before the institution of this suit, she was relieved, by a surgical operation, of a fibroid tumor of considerable size, and her physician testifies its growth Avas probably of several years duration.
The facts alleged, other than non-intercourse, which is not denied, do not amount to cruel and inhuman treatment, nor do they alone constitute grounds for divorce. Huff v. Huff, 73 W. Va. 330, 80 S. E. 846; Goff v. Goff, 60 W. Va. 9; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial