Case ID: cal-app_59/html/0678-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NOURSE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 4361.
    First Appellate District, Division Two.
    November 17, 1922.]
    CHARLES FERRARIS, Respondent, v. JOSEPHINE FERRARIS, Appellant.
    
       Divorce—Conflicting Evidence—Finding—Appeal.—In this action for divorce on the ground of adultery, in which the defendant filed an answer and also a cross-complaint based upon the ground of extreme cruelty, the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff having testified to facts and circumstances which were as positively denied by those called on behalf of the defendant, the appellate court would not set aside the finding of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County. J. A. Bardin, Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Norris & Warth and Emilio Lastreto for Appellant.
    Zabala & Sargent and Albert Picard for Respondent.
   NOURSE, J.

Plaintiff commenced this proceeding to obtain a divorce from the defendant on the ground of her adultery. She filed an answer to his complaint and also a cross-complaint based upon the ground of extreme cruelty. The interlocutory decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and relief under the. cross-complaint was denied. The defendant appeals from this decree. The only ground of the appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings made by the trial court.

We have made a thorough examination of the record, including the testimony of the various witnesses. This testimony presents the common story of a case of this nature. The witnesses called on behalf of the husband testified to facts and circumstances which were as positively denied by those called on behalf of the wife. It would serve no purpose to detail any of this testimony. The trial court had all the witnesses before it and concluded that the husband’s charges were true. When the evidence is in such conflict it is not for this court to set aside the finding of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Langdon, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.