Case ID: ohio-law-abs_47/html/0053-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By HILDEBRANT, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JONES, Appellant, v. JONES, Appellee.
    Ohio Appeals, First District, Hamilton County.
    No. 6553.
    Decided October 22, 1945.
    
      Wm. B. Peterman, Cincinnati, for appellant.
   OPINION

By HILDEBRANT, P. J.

Appeal on questions of law from an order of the Court of Common Pleas refusing to grant an uncontested divorce.

The petition merely sets forth that defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty toward the plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified to the jurisdictional facts and merely that defendant left the house, that he was and still is providing, and that he knew of no'reason for defendant so leaving. Two witnesses corroborated plaintiff by testifying he provided a proper home and support and defendant left that home, and that the witnesses knew of no reason for defendant’s leaving.

The trial court found the evidence disclosed merely a wilful absence of one year and three months without any testimony of aggravating circumstances constituting gross neglect of duty or extreme cruelty, and, therefore, plaintiff failed to sustain the allegations of the petition.

In order to reverse the judgment here, it should be plain to the reviewing court that the conclusions of the trial court cannot be supported by any rational view of the evidence. On the contrary, in the instant case, it is plain to this reviewing court that the trial court did take a rational view of the evidence disclosed by the record.

On the authority of Porter v Lerch, 129 Oh St 47, with attention directed to the body of the opinion at page 64, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

HILDEBRANT, PJ, MATTHEWS & ROSS, JJ, concur in the syllabus, opinion & judgment.