Court Opinion

ID: 7811695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:13:33.652041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:29.425501
License: Public Domain

Humphreys, J., (dissenting). After a careful reading of the facts in this case, my conclusion is that the attack made upon appellant by appellee was due to temporary insanity. They had lived together for a number of years in peace and harmony. No serious friction existed between them at the time the attack was made. The infliction of the injuries was an isolated act of cruelty, out of keeping with the current of their lives, and without excuse upon any other theory than momentary insanity. The undisputed evidence tended to show that appellee was beside herself, when she so unexpectedly and viciously attacked her husband. She herself testified that she knew nothing of the occurrence until it was all over. The evidence is wanting to show intentional cruelty, so a decree of divorce should have been refused. I also think the majority have incorrectly construed the statute and, in effect, overruled the case of Crews v. Crews, 68 Ark. 158. In that ease the divorce statutes were interpreted as conferring a sound discretion upon the chancellor to determine whether a divorce absolute, or from her bed and board only, should be granted in any particular case. The effect of the majority opinion in the instant case is to withdraw that power from the chancellor. For the reasons given, I am impelled to dissent from the majority opinion..