Case ID: okla_126/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RILEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MALOY v. MALOY.
    No. 17221.
    Opinion Filed Aug. 2, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal arad Error — Sufficiency of Evidence — Review ini Equity Case.
    In an equity action this court will weigh the evidence, but will not reverse the Judgment of the trial court unless it is clearly against the weight thereof.
    2. Appeal and Error — Amendments Regarded as Made.
    The amendment of a plea which ought to have been allowed, if leave to make it bad been asked in tbe trial court to conform it to tbe evidence adduced, without objection or by tbe adverse party, will be regarded in tbis court as baying been made.
    Note. — See under (1) 4 C. J. p. 897, §2867; p. 900, §2869'; 2 R. C. L. p. 202; 1 R. C. L. Supp. p. 432 ; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 90; 5 R. O. L. Supp. p. 81; 6 R. C. L. Supp. p. 73. (2) 4 C. J. p. 749, §2683.
    Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; John L. Norman, Judge.
    Action by D. F. Maloy against Rhey Ma-loy for divorce. Cross-petition by Rbey Ma-loy for divorce and alimony. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wright & Gill, for plaintiff in error.
    White, Nichols & Harris, for defendant in error.
   RILEY, J.

Tbe defendant below presents appeal from a judgment granting divorce to her husband, D. P. Maloy, and denying divorce and alimony to her. Tbe decree of divorce granted tbe husband will operate to grant tbe same freedom from marital restraint to tbe wife, so, in fact, her only grievance is tbe lack of an alimony award. The husband is a man of some wealth. At tbe time of tbe divorce judgment tbe defendant was 35 years of age. Tbe plaintiff husband was just completing tbe biblical allotted span of three score and ten. Tbis adventure upon the tempestuous sea of matrimony lasted for a brief period of 65 days, when the wife embarked for Oklahoma City in an automobile belonging to a son of tbe plaintiff, and was subsequently arrested upon a charge of theft of tbe vehicle. Tbe husband likewise came to Oklahoma City, after tbe institution of this action, being importuned, according to bis testimony, by agents of bis departed mate in an effort to compromise ,'tbe property rights here involved. He too saw tbe interior of one of Oklahoma City’s public buildings for three days and nights, upon an invitation in the form of a warrant based upon a charge of adultery, wherein the wife and the wife’s attorney played leading roles in insisting that officers do their duty at the phsycho-logical moment. Both charges were later dismissed, but the latter not before the alleged wild-oat-sowing husband had contributed $100 to an advocate who wrote his bond, and only after he had clamored loudly and sent telegrams to his home for aid and counsel in his hour of stress.

The trial court evidently properly considered the petition as amended to conform to the evidence adduced without objection, and considered such escapades as above set out in rendering the judgment on the ground of cruelty.

Eleven assignments of error are presented. They are without merit. It would serve no useful purpose to analyze the evidence; a great part of it is ' unnecessarily vulgar. From a careful weighing of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is sustained thereby. The judgment is affirmed.

BRANSON, C. J., MASON, Y. C. J., and HARRISON, PHELPS, LESTER, HUNT, CLARK, and HEFNER, JJ., concur.