Zeiner v. Zeiner

• Decision Date: 27 June 1935
• Citation: 120 Conn. 161,179 A. 644
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ZEINER v. ZEINER.

179 A. 644

120 Conn. 161

ZEINER v. ZEINER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 27, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Suit for divorce by Joseph P. Zeiner against Maybelle Zeiner on grounds of fraudulent contract, previous marriage of defendant undissolved, and adultery, brought to superior court in Litchfield county and tried to the court, wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint for divorce on ground of cruelty. Judgment for plaintiff on ground of adultery, and both parties appeal.

No error on defendant's appeal; plaintiff's appeal dismissed.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, AVERY, and FOSTER JJ.

Information acquired by physicians in their professional capacity is not privileged in Connecticut.

Louis Y. Gaberman and Glen W. Fox, both of Hartford, for plaintiff.

David Cramer, of Torrington, and Norman Mark Dube of New Milford, for defendant.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action for an annulment of his marriage with the defendant and for divorce. The annulment was sought upon the ground that the defendant induced the plaintiff to marry her as a result of false and fraudulent representations made by her for the purpose of deceiving him, and upon the further ground that previous to her marriage to him she had been married to Lawrence L. Long, which marriage had not been dissolved at the time of her marriage to the plaintiff. A divorce was claimed on the ground of adultery. The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, and filed a cross-complaint asking for a divorce upon the ground of cruelty. After trial, the court found for the defendant upon the issue of fraudulent contract and a prior marriage, and rendered judgment for the defendant upon these issues, from which the plaintiff has appealed. The court, however, found for the plaintiff upon the issue of adultery, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff upon that issue, from which the defendant has appealed. If the plaintiff prevails upon the defendant's appeal, he does not press his own appeal. We therefore confine ourselves to a discussion of the defendant's appeal.

Both parties have asked for corrections in the finding, but no change materially affecting the trial court's conclusion can be made. The plaintiff and defendant intermarried at Millerton, N. Y., September 13, 1933. It was the plaintiff's second, and the defendant's sixth, marriage. Her first and third marriages had been terminated by divorce; her second and fifth by the death of the husband in each case; her fourth marriage was to Lawrence L. Long on March 31, 1927. The latter took place in Dade county, Fla.; the parties separated in 1930, and Long has since married and is living in Florida. No evidence of any divorce between him and the defendant appeared, nor was there any evidence to show that no such divorce had been granted. In her application for a license to marry the plaintiff, the defendant signed and made oath to the statement that the proposed marriage was her third and that her former husbands were dead. She made a similar statement to the plaintiff. Following the marriage, they went on a wedding trip lasting a week, and upon its conclusion went to live in a house owned by the plaintiff in Terryville in the town of Plymouth. The plaintiff's married daughter, her husband and three children, were also living in this house. In addition to the daughter, the plaintiff had several sons. As a result of an investigation made by the sons regarding the defendant's past life, a family conference was held in a hall near their residence, at which the plaintiff, defendant, and the plaintiff's five adult children were present. This conference was held on the evening of October 3, 1933, and lasted from about 8:30 to about 12:30 o'clock, during which time the defendant's former life was thoroughly discussed and she was subjected to considerable questioning concerning it, with the result that she was left in a nervous and excited condition and spent the remainder of the night in a cottage on the plaintiff's property adjacent to the house in which they had been living.

On the following morning she left Terryville in an automobile with a suitcase containing her personal effects and went to the town of Cornwall, arriving there in the afternoon, where she went to a trailer or " house car" owned and occupied by Guarando Ferriole. At that time she had funds only sufficient to pay her taxi fare from Terryville to Cornwall. Ferriole was a young man whom the defendant knew when she resided in the town of Washington before her marriage to the plaintiff. He was at that time working on a road construction job near by, and took his meals at her house and did work for her such as mowing her lawn and cutting wood. In August, 1933, he moved his trailer to Cornwall bridge, where he was then working on another road construction job. He ate and slept in the vehicle, which was about six and one-half feet high, ten feet long, and six feet wide, and was mounted on wheels. It had two single cots or beds at one end a little less than two feet apart, both running lengthwise of the trailer and with no curtain between them. The trailer was in the vicinity of a construction job and near a building where a number of the workers lived. Upon her arrival, the defendant asked permission of Ferriole to stay for a few days until she felt better. She remained from the afternoon of October 4th until the night of October 7th. During this time the curtains in the windows were drawn at night and the lights were put out between 10 and 11 o'clock. During the day Ferriole went to his work on the construction job, leaving early in the morning and returning at about 6:30 in the evening. The plaintiff and one of his sons, having learned of the whereabouts of the defendant, complained to the state police, one of whom...