Case ID: idaho_43/html/0319-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "T. BAILEY LEE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(December 6, 1926.)
    EFFIE K. GALBRAITH, Appellant, v. EDWARD M. GALBRAITH, Respondent.
    [251 Pac. 1118.]
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Bingham County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.
    Action for divorce. Judgment for defendant.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Thomas & Andersen, for Appellant.
    Where the evidence is conflicting and there can be gained from it a distinct impression that the weight of the evidence tends to prove the averments of extreme cruelty, divorce should be granted on that ground. (Willson v. Willson, 84 Wash. 240, 146 Pac. 615.)
    A. S. Dickinson, for Respondent.
    There is a substantial conflict in the evidence and a decree granting or refusing a divorce on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. (Donaldson v. Donaldson, 31 Ida. 180, 170 Pac. 94; De Gloedt v. De Cloedt, 24 Ida. 277; Edwards v. Edwards, 80 Ala. 97; Blair v. Blair, 122 Cal. 57, 54 Pac. 369; Fuller v. Fuller, 17 Cal. 605; Johnson v. Johnson, 22 Colo. 20, 55 Am. St. 112, 43 Pae. 130.)
   T. BAILEY LEE, J.

Effie K. Galbraith sued her husband, Edward M. Galbraith, for divorce, setting up extreme cruelty, wilful desertion and neglect. The court found against her; and from the judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial she has appealed, assigning insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and error in the conclusions drawn therefrom.

The exhibits admitted have neither been included in the transcript nor separately* certified; and there is no evideuce before this court except the recorded testimony of the witnesses. On every vital issue there is a direct and substantial conflict of evidence throughout. Impeachments and inconsistencies are manifold. The trial court had the witnesses before him, decided the question of credibility, and his determination cannot be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Givens, and Taylor, JJ., concur.