Yost v. Yost

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.</p> <p>Statement.</p> <p>On December 21st, 1908, John M. Prall brought in the circuit court for Hillsborough county, Florida, a suit in equity for a divorce from his wife Emma L. Prall. In the amended bill of complaint it is alleged that the couple were married April 3, 1895, at Fort Dodge, Iowa; that they lived together in Iowa and two children were born to them; that during their married life till he finally separated from her, the complainant was a faithful and devoted husband; that during their residence in Iowa the wife became enamored with a strange religious sect and a devotee at its altar; * * * that from the time of her conversion to the belief of this sect the defendant began to be estranged from the complainant because of his inability to join her in the adoption of the tenets of this religion;” that to please her he moved to Estero in Lee county, Florida, where the sect was established; that the wife “further yielding to the doctrine of this sect, which holds as one of its beliefs that the members of the sect or union are married in Christ and are not properly married to any one, withdrew herself from all marital relations with complainant, abjuring him in every way and telling him that his approaches were obnoxious to her; that she refused to * * * allow complainant the privileges of a husband; that during this time the respondent became more and more undutiful in her relations towards complainant, being enraged with complainant on account of his refusal to submit all of their property to be community property with the said religious society as aforesaid; thaf^lie constantly chided him upon his sinfulness and sought to estrange his children from him. Moreover complainant says that respondent ceased in every way to render services to him as a wife, and instead of extending to him courtesy and respect due a husband, maligned him and abused him in t

<p>APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.</p> <p>Action for divorce. Judgment for defendant.</p> <p>■ “The findings of fact must support the judgment, and if not, the judgment must be reversed.” (Ponting v. Isaman, 7 Ida. 581, 65 Pac. 434.) .</p> <p>“There is not a substantial conflict in the evidence such as to bring it within the rule that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the finding of the court will not be disturbed.” (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Ida. 190, 85 Pac. 490.)</p> <p>“In equity cases the appellate court will examine the evidence with a view to sustain the trial court in its findings and judgment, but will reverse the judgment if the evidence, is insufficient to sustain it.” {Small v. Harrington, 10 Ida. 499, 79 Pac. 461.1</p> <p>\Where there is substantial conflict in the evidence on which any finding of fact is based

<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