Case Name: CARL ENGLEKE v. WILHEMINA ENGLEKE
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1922-05-26
Citations: 152 Minn. 242
Docket Number: No. 22,780
Parties: CARL ENGLEKE v. WILHEMINA ENGLEKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
CARL ENGLEKE v. WILHEMINA ENGLEKE.
May 26, 1922.
No. 22,780.
Divorce — cruel and inhuman treatment.
The evidence in this case sustains a finding of cruel and inhuman treatment as alleged in defendant’s cross complaint. The evidence of defendant is sufficiently corroborated.
Action in the district court for Hennepin county for absolute divorce. The case was tried before Nye, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendant, awarding her $20 per month permanent alimony, and $100 attorney’s fees. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
John G. Priebe, for appellant.
Joss, Ohmcm, Pryberger & Parker, for respondent.
Reported in 188 N. W. 316.

Opinion:
Hallam, J.
Plaintiff and defendant were married October 16, 1920. Plaintiff was 77 years old and the father of 11 children by a former marriage. Defendant was 62 and the mother of 13 children by a former marriage. The parties lived together for five weeks and in two months plaintiff brought action for divorce. Defendant by cross complaint asked for a separation on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The court denied plaintiff any relief and granted defendant's prayer for a separation. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying a new trial.
Plaintiff contends that the findings are not sustained by the evidence. The evidence is of such a character that we do not deem it necessary to review it. We have examined it with care. In some particulars the findings may be too broad, but there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of cruel and inhuman treatment and to sustain a conclusion that defendant is entitled to a separation.
Plaintiff contends that there is no corroboration of the testimony of defendant as required by G-. S. 1913, § 8465. Where the cruel treatment is of the character relied upon in this case, corroboration must in the nature of things be circumstantial. We are of the opinion that the corroboration is sufficient. Order affirmed.