Wilson v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 19 March 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 241.)
• Citation: 193 S.W. 504
• Parties: WILSON v. WILSON.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

193 S.W. 504

WILSON v. WILSON.

(No. 241.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 19, 1917.

Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; Jno. M. Elliott, Chancellor.

Action for divorce by Sallie Wilson against W. W. Wilson. From a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Botts & O'Daniel, of De Witt, for appellant. Jno. W. Moncrief, of De Witt, for appellee.

HART, J.

Sallie Wilson instituted an action for divorce against her husband, W. W. Wilson, on the ground that he had been addicted to habitual drunkenness for the period of one year before the bringing of the action.

The record shows that the husband filed an answer to the complaint, but it does not contain the answer itself. The record also shows that the parties were given time within which to take depositions.

Upon final hearing of the case the chancellor found that the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses established the fact that her husband had been addicted to habitual drunkenness for the period of one year before the institution of the suit. The chancellor further found that the plaintiff had offered such indignities to the person of the husband as to render his condition in life intolerable. He was of the opinion that both parties were equally at fault, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for want of equity. The plaintiff has appealed.

Habitual drunkenness is not shown by the habitual but moderate use of intoxicating liquors. The charge of habitual drunkenness within the statute is shown, however, by proving that the person has a persistent habit of frequently getting drunk. It is not necessary that he be constantly drunk, nor that he have more drunken than sober hours. It is enough that he has the habit so firmly fixed upon him that he becomes drunk frequently and is unable to resist when opportunity or temptation is presented. O'Kane v. O'Kane, 103 Ark. 382, 147 S. W. 73, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 655.

Tested by this rule we think the court was correct in holding that the testimony of the plaintiff showed that the defendant was an habitual drunkard within the meaning of our divorce statute. We do not deem it necessary to abstract the testimony on this point, for the reason that we think the chancellor properly denied the plaintiff relief, because she was equally at fault.

Habitual drunkenness for one year and statutory cruel treatment are each grounds for divorce in our statute. Section 2672 of Kirby's Digest. Hence each is a good recriminatory...