Case Name: Kopplin, Appellant, vs. Kopplin, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1915-02-09
Citations: 159 Wis. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kopplin, Appellant, vs. Kopplin, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 559–561

Head Matter:
Kopplin, Appellant, vs. Kopplin, Respondent.
January 12 —
February 9, 1915.
Divorce: Cruel and inhuman treatment.
In an action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, wherein defendant counterclaimed on the same ground, a finding hy the trial court that neither party was entitled to a divorce on that ground is sustained.
Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Dodge county: O. W. Lamoeeux, Judge.
Affirmed.
This is an action for - a divorce from the bonds of matrimony based upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff husband by the defendant wife. The defendant counterclaims and alleges cruel and inhuman treatment of her by the husband and prays for a judgment of divorce.
The plaintiff was fifty-seven years of age and the defendant forty-one years of age. Both parties had- been married before. It appears that the plaintiff is a German and the defendant a Hungarian; that they had been unacquainted up to a short time before their marriage, and at their third or fourth meeting they became engaged to marry and were married on November 14, 1912. They resided in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The testimony showed that the defendant had endangered her life by eating sulphur and that it ivas necessary to have physicians attend her at that time. The plaintiff testified that the defendant’s conduct worried him and made him nervous, so that he could not sleep; that she would not cook for him and treated him with' contempt, and so harassed him by ill treatment that he was afraid of his life. The defendant put in a counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. She testified that the plaintiff was the aggressor in their family troubles; that he called her abusive names in his fits of anger; that he refused to provide the necessaries of life; that when he learned she was with child he became angry, mistreated her, and wanted her to see a doctor for the purpose of producing a miscarriage ; that his conduct was disrespectful, abusive, and calculated to deprive her of his support and to drive her from his home.
The county court held that neither party was entitled to a divorce from the bonds of matrimony. The court found that neither party was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment towards the other. The plaintiff was adjudged to pay the clerk’s fees and no costs were allowed. From such judgment the plaintiff appeals. The defendant has filed no brief in the case in this court nor have her counsel appeared before this court in defense of the judgment.
For the appellant there was a brief by Geo. B. Swan and C. E. Iloolcer, and oral argument by Mr. Swan.

Opinion:
SiebecKee, J.
An examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that the trial court was justified in finding that the evidence in the case does not establish that either party was guilty of cruel or inhuman treatment toward the other. The evidence was unsatisfactory and lacks convincing force to show that either party was guilty of conduct constituting cruel or inhuman treatment. The conduct of both parties evinces lack of respect toward each other and that lack of friendly relationship necessary to maintain a harmonious and agreeable state of family life, but is wanting in the elements constituting cruel and inhuman treatment. It seems that they have been equally at fault in failing to perform their full marital duties. The trial court, who saw the par: ties while testifying to their tale of woe, believed that neither had been guilty of acts amounting to cruel treatment. Giving due weight to this conclusion of the trial court, we cannot say that the judgment is not fully supported by the record.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed, •