Yorn v. Yorn.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 218.,218. |
| Citation | 49 A.2d 136 |
| Parties | YORN v. YORN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Divorce suit by Esther Yorn against Arthur Yorn. From a decree nisi and from an order increasing alimony, Arthur Yorn appeals.
Decree and order affirmed.
Milton M. Unger, of Newark, for petitioner-respondent.
Kristeller & Zucker, of Newark (Saul J. Zucker, of Newark, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
This is an appeal in a divorce case from a decree nisi entered by the Advisory Master below and an appeal from an order increasing respondent's alimony from $25 to $35 per week and contesting the direction to pay the item of $127 for professional dental services. The divorce was on the ground of extreme cruelty, and though originally an answer was filed, the defendant abandoned his defense and withdrew his answer.
The parties were married on December 27, 1942, and lived together until July 12, 1943, when the petitioner left her husband because of his treatment of her and returned to her mother. The separation continued until October 1944, when petitioner returned to her husband. They were again separated on March 23, 1945, petitioner testifying that she left because she was afraid of him.
There was a quarrel between the parties in April 1943, when the defendant became infuriated and threw a large metal opener about twelve inches long at the petitioner. In July 1943 he called her names, raised his hands in front of her face and pushed her against the bed and put his hands on her throat. She was very much frightened and became hysterical.
In July 1943, when the petitioner was pregnant and suffering from hemorrhages, he accused her of not wanting the child and attempting to do away with it. He ignored the petitioner except when he argued with her, and he would point his finger at her and forcibly smear her lipstick over her face.
Following the reconciliation the conduct of the defendant became progressively worse and more violent, and although it was not competent proof of extreme cruelty being within six months of the filing of the petition, it was admissible as evidence to show a breach of the condition of condonation and as giving character to the earlier acts of cruelty complained of. Kelly v. Kelly, 121 N.J.Eq. 255, 189 A. 381, 191 A. 257.
On New Year's Eve 1944 the defendant took the petitioner bodily out of bed and flung her to the floor. In January or February 1945 he pushed her against the wall with force sufficient to shake the building and threw her to the floor. He twisted her wrists and she was in great fear.
In the same month he struck her across the face, pushed her against the wall and twisted her arm. She was so frightened she called for help from her neighbors. On another occasion he again struck her in the face and knocked her glasses off.
He made constant threats against her, said he would like to kill her, told her to go home and to get out. Finally he kicked her, and while she was bent over looking for a magazine he kicked her again, and she, according to her testimony, became so frightened that she left her home. His conduct was growing worse, his attacks more frequent and vicious.
The character given by this evidence to the preceding events and the petitioner's reactions indicate quite clearly that if it continued her health would be endangered and her life would become one of extreme wretchedness and discomfort.
In extreme cruelty cases each situation must be evaluated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...which will move the court to grant a divorce. Each case must necessarily depend on its own particular circumstances. Yorn v. Yorn, 138 N.J.Eq. 608, 49 A.2d 136 (E. & A.1946). It is now established that personal violence or physical abuse is not the only form of extreme cruelty which will wa......
-
H. v. H., A--535
...v. Feybusch, 110 N.J.Eq. 358, 160 A. 386 (E. & A.1932); Hill v. Hill, 97 N.J.Eq. 237, 241, 127 A. 584 (Ch.1925); Yorn v. Yorn, 138 N.J.Eq. 608, 610, 49 A.2d 136 (E. & A.1946). Compare Steinbrugge v. Steinbrugge, 2 N.J. 77, 82, 65 A.2d 606, 609, (1949), where, in reversing a decree Nisi, the......
-
Sperling v. Sperling, A--140
...110 N.J.Eq. 563, 565, 160 A. 345 (E. & A. 1932); Burke v. Burke, 113 N.J.Eq. 77, 78, 166 A. 140 (E. & A. 1935); Yorn v. Yorn, 138 N.J.Eq. 608, 49 A.2d 136 (E. & A. 1946); Herr, Marriage, Divorce and Separation, secs. 755, 766, 1402. This justified separating herself from him and made him ch......
-
Stolov v. Stolov, A--294
...will move the court to grant a divorce. Each case must necessarily depend on its own particular circumstances. Yorn v. Yorn, 138 N.J.Eq. 608 (49 A.2d 136) (E. & A.1946). It is now established that personal violence or physical abuse is not the only form of extreme cruelty which will warrant......