United States v. Motley

<p>Appeal from Pike Circuit Court. — Hon. Dwvid H. Eby, J udge.</p> <p>(1) All of the indignities alleged in plaintiff’s petition, in the ease at bar, except the charge of poisoning, were trivial, ancient, and had been condoned, if indeed they ever constituted offenses which would justify a severance of the marital ties. As to the charge that defendant attempted to take plaintiff’s life by administering strychnine poison, she certainly is entitled to the same presumption of innocence which would prevail in the event she were arrested and required to be defendant against such a charge in the criminal courts, and it certainly follows that the same quantum, of proof would be required to establish her guilt in the case at bar, as it would in a criminal case. Before a court could properly find against her in this case on that issue she should be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Rice on Evidence, see. 85, p. 125. (2) The court erred in making the allowances to the defendant so meager and insufficient. • Defendant was confronted with a grave criminal charge. She was an invalid and practically without means. She was, therefore, by reason of this pecuniary embarrassment, unable to procure the necessary means and witnesses; medical and otherwise, to clear herself of the awful charge that was made against her. It goes without saying that the sums allowed by the court were ’grossly inadequate and insufficient for any purpose.</p> <p>(1) While in divorce cases, it is the province of the appellate court to make its own deductions from tire evidence, independent of the findings of the trial court, yet where the evidence is conflicting and contradictory on material issues, the appellate court will defer largely to the findings of the court below, and will not disturb same unless it is made clearly to appear that manifest error has been committed in the conclusions reached by the trial court. King v. King, 42 Mo. App. 454; Lawlor v. Lawlor, 76 Mo. App. 637; Munchow v. Munc