Case Name: Ralph A. CLARY, Sr. v. Mrs. Barbara Boesch, wife of Ralph A. CLARY, Sr.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-01-12
Citations: 341 So. 2d 628
Docket Number: No. 7782
Parties: Ralph A. CLARY, Sr. v. Mrs. Barbara Boesch, wife of Ralph A. CLARY, Sr.
Judges: Before BOUTALL, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 341
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Ralph A. CLARY, Sr. v. Mrs. Barbara Boesch, wife of Ralph A. CLARY, Sr.
No. 7782.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 12, 1977.
Kirschenheuter, Landry & Shaw, Ernest T. Landry, New Orleans, for defendant-ap-pellee.
Many, Lo Coco & Dwyer, Vincent T. Lo Coco, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Before BOUTALL, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment dismissing his suit for a separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment.
In order to be entitled to a judgment plaintiff had to prove that, 1) his wife withdrew from the common dwelling; 2) she was without a lawful cause for withdrawing; and 3) she has constantly refused to return to live with plaintiff. LSA-C.C. Art. 143.
Plaintiff's testimony that he did not want his wife to leave and has extended an open invitation to her to return was flatly contradicted by defendant who testified that the separation was mutually agreed upon and her husband never asked her to return. Plaintiff's witnesses supplied corroboration only to the extent that defendant had left the matrimonial domicile and at one time or another plaintiff told them that she had left against plaintiff's will and he wanted her to return.
In the final analysis the quality of the testimony of these witnesses depended upon the credibility of plaintiff, since they were simply repeating his self serving statements. It is significant that plaintiff said his original intention was to get a non-fault divorce based upon the couple living separate and apart voluntarily for two years, but as time went on he decided to attempt to prove defendant at fault so as to avoid liability for alimony. This tends to discredit plaintiff's sincerity when he told these witnesses that the separation was not voluntary and that he wanted defendant to return.
The trial judge was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of both parties and we cannot say that he erred in accepting the testimony of defendant as opposed to plaintiff.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. AFFIRMED.
BEER, J., concurs with written reasons.