The record-union., 1891-02-24
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Titled February IA. 1891

Tiled February IA. 1871
Appeal from Superior Court, Sacra-
mento County = John w. Armstrong,
Judge.
For appellant, J. w. Hughes, of coun-
sci, A. l.. Hart.
For respondent, Chauncey 81. Dunn.
IN BANK.
JOANNA COOPER,
Appellant,
JOHN F. COOPER,
Respondent.
This is an action for divorce on the
ground of extreme cruelty. The COM
plant charged the defendant with many
acts OF cruelty, extending over period of
several years, and the answer admitted
all the avermentS of the complaint in this
regard. After trial the court found that
all the averments of the complaint were
true; that $1,000 would be a fair share of
the community property for the plaintiff,
and that the property rights of the parties
had been anlicably settled: that the de-
fendant was better fitted to have the care,
custody and control of the children than
the plaintiff, and was better able to sup
port them. a decree was accordingly
entered, dissolving the bonds of matri-
mony between the parties, and awarding
to the plaintiff 5000, as her share of the
property, and to the defendant the care
and custody of the two minor children.
Within ten days after the decree was
entered, the plaintiff changed her attor-
ney ana moved for a new trial, on the
ground that the findings were not juSti-
lied by the evidence, because they We're
supported only by her own uncorrobo-
rated testimony. The motion was de-
MED and thereupon she appealed from
the Judgment and order.
AT the trial the plaintiff was Il witness
and testified to many acts of cruelty on
the part Of Tie defendant such as repeat
ediy calling her harsh and opprobrious
names, threatening her with violence,
SEEING her with great force and violence,
pinchlng her arms until they Were black
and blue, striking her upon the face and
body, leaving black and blue marks from
his blows, throwing her upon the floor III Il
fude, angry and threatening manner, and
compelling her TO leave the family resi-
dence and seek shelter elsewhere, which
acts, as she said, We're committed without
any fault or provocalion on her part, and
had caused her great physical pain and
mental anguish and sorrow. She also testi-
lied that aboat two wears beforehand this
was alleged in the cOmplaint-thc defend
ant commenced al action against her for
divorce on the ground Of cruelty without
any cause therefor, and finally dismissed
the same after having sbalncd and humil-
lated me by the charges which he brought
against me.'' The complaint in The
former action was introduced in evidence
and it stated, among other thslgs. that
The defendant, plaintiff here, by innuen-
does and slurs and untruths, had az
tempted TO poison the minds Of the chill.
dren of the parties against the plaintiff
Tor the purpose of causing them to mis-
trust and dislike plaintiff, and 10 deprive
plaintiff OF the affection of his said chill
dren naturally due him; chat continuously
since SAID defendants return from Chi
cago, as aforesaid, she has said in the
presence of and to said children. when
plaintiff was absent or about TO be absent
from the City Of Sacramento, the resi-
dence of plaintiff and defendant attend
ing to plaintiffs business, that she hoped
some accident would bef5ll plaintiff, so
that he could not, or, for some other rea-
son, would not, or ever, return to defendant
or to said children; that on or about the
Sd day of January, A. d. 1885, she. de-
tendant, threatened TO kill plaintiff, and
has since said she then intended to do
so.''
Grove l.. Johnson, the PLAINTIFFS attor-
ney, WAS also called as a witness in her
behalf, and testified that he was well ac-
qualntcd with the plaintiff and defendant;
that he had known them for many years:
that the defendant, in conversation with
him, had admitted that on several occa-
sons he had used violence up0n TIE
plaintiff; that he had seized her by the
arm and forcibly prevented her from
leaving the house on several occasions
that on one occasion he had pinched
plaintiffs arms, and that he had also
used harsh and opprobrious names to her.
He further testified that the defendant is
a man of strong and ungoyernable tenn
per and accustomed to have his own Way:
that the plaintiff is a small, frail and deli
cate woman, and her constitution is such
that she cannot stand much mental suf-
fering; that he knew of the divorce pro-
ceedings brought by defendant against
the plaintiff, in which defendant charged
plaintiff with cruelty; that Mrs. Cooper
was afraid to and did not contest the
same; that Mr.. Cooper dismissed them of
his own motion after they had come partly
to trial; that said divorce proceedings had
caused Mrs. Cooper much sorrow and
trouble and grievous mental suffering
and had troubled her mentally great
deal, as the witness had ascertained and
seen from many conversations with her.
The above was, in substance, all the
testimony showing cause for divorce
and the only question is, was the plaint-
ifs testimony sufficiently corroborated
to meet the requirements of Section 130 of
the Civil Code? That section provides:
''No divorce can be granted upon the de-
fault OF the defendant, or upon the I'M
corroborated statement, admission, or
testimony of the parties.''
Under this section it evidently is not
necessary that the PLAINTIFF testimony be
corroborated as to every fact and circum-
stance testified to. 1t is enough if there
be corroboration as to some fact or facts
which is or are sufficient to support the
action and justify the entry of decree in
plaintiffs favor. (Matthai VS.. Matthai. 49
Cal. 9G.)
In Evans VS.. Evans, al Cal 103.) the
court, speaking of the statute then in
force, and which was similar to the pro-
vision of the code above quoted, said:
''The statute does not define to what ex-
tent the confederation must go. In the
very nature of the case it would be inn
possible to lay down any general rule as
to the decree of corroboration which will
be requisite. Hence, the statute only re-
quires that there shall be some corrobo-
rating evidence"
We think there was som me ecorroborating
evidence in this case. One of the acts Of
cruelty alleged i'll the complaint was the
institution by the defendant against the
plaintiff of former suit for divorce.
without any cause therefor. The charges
made in the complaint in that case, if un-
true, were extremely cruel and unjust,
and such as no husband should ever be
permitted to make against his WIFE That
the charges We're made was shown by the
complaint itself, which was introduced in
evidence, and that they We're untrue
must be presumed from the fact that the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his suit.
though he had by threats and fear pre-
vented the defendant from appearing to
contest it.
These facts, with the testimony of Mr.
Johnson, certainly corroborated the
plaintiffs testimony as to one act of ex-
treme cruelty on the part of the defend
ant, and we think this sufficient corrobor-
alton to uphold the Judgment
1t follows, in our opinion, that the
Judgment and order should be affirmed.
and we so advise REICuEr n