Case ID: la_151/html/0403-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ST. PAUL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(91 South. 818)
    No. 23835.
    COLLETTI v. TRANCHINA.
    (May 1, 1922.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Oourt.)
    
    I. Appeal and error &wkey;>(008(I) — Judgment reversed for manifest error in finding of facts.
    Where manifest error appears in the finding of facts of the court below, the judgment based .thereon will be reversed.
    
      (Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    2. Divorce <&wkey;l29(l6) — Testimony showing ' husband’s misconduct, and contradicted only by testimony of negative and general character, held to justify divorce.
    In a wife’s suit for divorce, where two unimpeachable witnesses testified to circumstances leaving no room for dtfubt of the husband’s misconduct, and the only contradiction was by testimony of a negative and general character, and neither the husband nor the corespondent testified, a divorce should be granted.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge.
    Suit by Mrs. Catherine Colletti against Angelo Tranchina. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and judgment rendered for plaintiff.
    Paul L. Fourchy, of New Orleans, for appellant.
    Harold A. Moise and Arthur B. Hammond, both of New Orleans, for appellee.
    By Division C, composed of Justices DAW-KINS, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON.
   ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff sues her husband for a divorce a vinculo on statutory grounds. The misconduct of the defendant is shown by the evidence of two unimpeached witnesses, who testify to circumstances which leave no room for doubt as to the fact; and the only contradiction thereof is the testimony of two witnesses of a negative and general character. Neither the defendant nor the corespondent, both of whom were available, was put on the stand to deny the charge.

The judgment of the lower court, rejecting plaintiff’s demand, appears to us manifestly erroneous.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed, and it is now ordered that plaintiff, Mrs. Catherine Colletti, have judgment herein against defendant, Angelo Tranchina, her husband, decreeing a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between them; that she be awarded the permanent custody and control of her minor children, Maria and Joseph, issue of said marriage; that the community of acquets and gains be dissolved, and the property composing same partitioned between them; that the injunction herein issued, restraining defendant from disposing of said property, be perpetuated; and that defendant pay the costs of both courts.