Case ID: ind_114/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Elliott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 14,202.
    Mercer v. Mercer.
    
      Divobce. — Complaint.—Sufficiency of. — A complaint by a wife for divorce, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment, and charging specifically that the defendant had struck, kicked and choked the plaintiff, and neglected to secure medical attention for her when sick or to give her any attention himself, is good.
    
      Same. — Alimony.—Discretion of Trial Court. — The Supreme Court will not review the decision of the trial court respecting alimony, unless there has been an abuse of discretion.
    New Trial. — Newly Discovered Evidence. — A complaint for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, is bad if it fails to show that the new evidence was not discovered during the term at which the decree was rendered.
    From the Rush Circuit Court.
    
      B. L. Smith and W. J. Henley, for appellant.
    
      J. Q. Thomas and I). S. Morgan, for appellee.
    
      Filed May 19,1888.
   Elliott, J.

The appellee petitioned for a divorce from the appellant, and obtained the decree she sought. The complaint is challenged for the first time by the assignment of errors.

The complaint alleges that the appellant has for twelve years treated the appellee in a cruel and inhuman manner; that he has struck, kicked and choked her, and that he has neglected to secure for her medical attention in her illness, or to give her any attention himself.

We hold the complaint to be clearly sufficient, for the specific acts charged constitute cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of the statute.

The sufficiency of the affidavit filed with the complaint is not called in question by the assignment of errors.

The appellant’s complaint fiar a new trial, filed after the term at which the decree was rendered, is defective in many respects. It is enough to point out one defect, and that is that it does not show that the newly discovered evidence was not discovered during the term at which the decree was rendered. Hines v. Driver, 100 Ind. 315.

We can not say that the trial court, in fixing the appellee’s alimony, abused its discretion, and we must, therefore, sustain its judgment on that subject. Peck v. Peck, 113 Ind. 168.

Judgment affirmed.