Court Opinion

ID: 9656515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:50:00.966015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.938937
License: Public Domain

Wenke, J.,
concurring.
While I agree with the majority opinion and think it correctly reflects the conclusions of fact to be drawn from the evidence adduced, considering the principles of law applicable thereto, however, because I feel the dissenting opinion comes to erroneous conclusions as to certain principles of law involved and fails to properly and sufficiently set out the conduct of appellant as it relates to the charge of adultery made against her, I deem it desirable to express my views in regard thereto.
The author of the dissent comes to the conclusion that syllabus point No. 1 of the opinion overrules the law relating to recrimination originally announced by this court in Wilson v. Wilson, 89 Neb. 749, 132 N. W. 401, and followed as recently as Egbert v. Egbert, 149 Neb. 227, 30 N. W. 2d 669. The rule is as follows: “ ‘Upon an application for a divorce, where both parties *317are found guilty of any of the enumerated offenses foi which a divorce may be granted, the court should dismiss the bill.’ ”
Syllabus point No. 1 of the opinion is as follows: “Where the evidence in a divorce action establishes adultery on the part of one of the parties thereto, the court is required to grant the prayer of the other party seeking a divorce on that ground unless 'prevented from doing so by applicable statutory provisions .” (Emphasis mine.) The language emphasized is the part of this syllabus point which the author of the dissent contends has that effect. In order to understand to what our holding in Wilson v. Wilson, supra, must necessarily have application, the jurisdiction and authority of the district court in divorce proceedings, and this court on appeal, should be understood. That jurisdiction and authority are set forth in Harrington v. Grieser, 154 Neb. 685, 48 N. W. 2d 753, as follows:
“Jurisdiction of the court in matters relating to divorce and alimony is given by the statute and every power exercised by the court with reference thereto must look for its source in the statute or it does not exist.
“Courts of general jurisdiction have the inherent power to do all things necessary for the proper administration of justice and equity within the scope of their jurisdiction,.” (Emphasis mine.)
The jurisdiction of the district court to deny a divorce on the ground of recrimination is given to it by section 42-304, R. R. S. 1943, which provides, insofar as here material, that: “No divorce shall be decreed in any case * * * where the party complaining shall be guilty of the same crime or misconduct charged against the respondent.” This has always been the law of the state. See R. S. 1866, Pt. I, c. 16, § 9, p. 129. Consequently our holding in Wilson v. Wilson, supra, must, of necessity, be related thereto and be a construction thereof because that is the basis and scope of our jurisdiction to deal therewith. In view thereof the doctrine *318therein announced has not, in my opinion, been either overruled or modified.
The author of the dissent seems to be of the opinion that this rather simple divorce case presents such an unusual situation that it calls for the exercise of an unusual remedy, that is, to send it back to the district court for a new trial. This idea is apparently based on the fact that since we have herein modified certain rules relating to divorce that the trial court should be given an opportunity to decide this case in view thereof.
It is elementary, as stated in Stratbucker v. Junge, 153 Neb. 885, 46 N. W. 2d 486, that: “A wrong reason for a correct conclusion does not militate against the decision.” The record discloses that the trial court did not exclude any competent, material evidence and, it is also apparent, that both parties were given the opportunity to, and did, fully present their side of the case. Section 25-1925, R. R. S. 1943, provides that it is the duty of this court, on appeal in equity cases, “to retry the issue or issues of fact involved” de novo and “reach an independent” decision based thereon. As stated in Spencer v. Spencer, 158 Neb. 629, 64 N. W. 2d 348: “In an action in equity this court is required to try the issues de novo and to reach an independent conclusion as to what findings are required under the pleadings and evidence without regard to the conclusions reached by the district court.” This statute applies to divorce actions. See Spencer v. Spencer, supra.
Under this principle it seems to me that all the author of the dissent speaks of as being the basis for his recommending a new trial are things we could and should consider in this case under the foregoing statutory duty. In fact, the majority opinion has applied the rules herein announced to the evidence adduced by the parties. That is all a new trial could accomplish except to delay the ultimate decision, which is something we should not foster.
We come then to the issue of adultery. The dissent *319seems to leave the impression that our finding the appellant guilty of adultery is erroneous because it must necessarily be based on the testimony of the witness Kenneth W. Casey relating to a certain act carried on between him and appellant which constituted sodomy. See § 28-919, R. R. S. 1943. I am sure the author of the opinion, as well as the other members of the court, are fully capable of and understand the difference between sodomy and adultery and what is required to establish either one or the other.
In view of what is said in the dissent in regard thereto it seems to me it is necessary to discuss somewhat in detail the facts established by the evidence adduced as they relate to the issue of adultery. Ordinarily a statement of our conclusion reached in regard thereto would be sufficient as a recitation of such facts serves no useful purpose and only leaves a permanent record to possibly embarrass the three small children here involved after they grow up. The dissent eliminates the basis of this restraint exercised by the writer of the majority opinion in dealing with the sordid facts recited in the evidence.
The record shows these parties had considerable trouble during the period of their married lives because of jealousy and drinking which often resulted in quarrels and abusive conduct. Later in their married life they were also bothered with financial problems. However, whatever happened in this regard was condoned by both and they apparently got along fairly well until April 28, 1956, when appellant wrote appellee a letter, addressed to him at Des Moines, Iowa, where he was then working, wherein she advised him that as far as she was concerned their marriage was all over and she did not care to see him again. Appellee had, prior thereto, been suspicious of appellant’s relationship with Clark Triplett, who operated an appliance store in Broken Bow, Nebraska. After receiving appellant’s letter he proceeded to find out if that relationship was *320what caused their marriage to break up. He obtained the services of Myrl Jones, a private detective, to assist him in this effort. He was also assisted by his mother, Mary E. Baker, who lived in Broken Bow and had a business there.
As early as State v. Way, 5 Neb. 283, by adopting certain language from Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. 113, we said of the crime of adultery, which, in a criminal action, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that: “ ‘The evidence by which the act of adultery is proved is seldom direct. The natural secrecy of the act makes it ordinarily impossible to prove it, except by circumstantial evidence. The circumstances must be such, indeed, “as to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion of guilt.” But when adulterous disposition is shown to exist between the parties at the time of the alleged act, then mere opportunity, with comparatively slight circumstances showing guilt, will be sufficient to justify the inference that criminal intercourse has actually taken place.’ ”
The evidence shows that for a long time appellant was, on many occasions, alone with Triplett and at such times they were conducting themselves in a manner that it was evident to those who observed them that their relationship was not merely that of friends but that each was interested in the other in an amorous way.
Mary E. Baker, appellee’s mother, testified that about 10:45 p.m. on July 19, 1956, appellant and Triplett were in the latter’s store and turned out the lights and stayed therein until about 1 a.m., July 20, 1956; that many evenings she saw them alone in Triplett’s store; and that many times she saw them together and alone at places other than the store.
Myrl Jones and appellee both testified that on the evening of August 3, 1956, appellant went to the Triplett store; that when she went there she was neatly dressed and tidy in appearance; that apparently a beer party was being held in the store; that about 1:05 a.m. *321on August 4, 1956, the last guest left leaving appellant and Triplett alone in the store; that all the lights in the store were then turned off except one red night light; that about 1:10 a.m. they saw appellant and Triplett embracing each other; that at dawn (4:45 a.m.) both Triplett and appellant left the store; that when she left her hair was mussed and her clothing untidy, her blouse being pulled out of her skirt; and that when he left his clothing was also untidy, his shirttail being out of his trousers. There are other incidents of like character described by Jones as having taken place on the evening of September 24, 1956, and again on September 25, 1956.
Sarah Ann Holm, who worked in the Baker home, testified that in the spring of 1954 appellant was talking to her in the kitchen of the Baker house and there told her the operation she had had, which resulted in some of her female organs being removed, would prevent her from bearing any more children; that she then took some contraceptives (rubbers) from her purse and said that because thereof (meaning the operation) she and Clark (meaning Triplett) would not be needing them anymore; and that she thereupon threw them in the wastebasket.
Kenneth W. Casey, with whom the Bakers became acquainted when they were running their resort near Park Rapids, Minnesota, in 1955, testified as to appellant’s attitude while alone with him, which was on numerous occasions. He testified she tried to induce him to be intimate with her by her conduct and when that was not successful asked him to be, saying she had been intimate with Triplett at Broken Bow and just how they did it on his office swivel chair.
I could recite additional facts these several witnesses testified to which show appellant’s attitude toward and desire for sexual relations with others than her husband during the period of their marriage and while they were living together and the fact that she satisfied such desires with Triplett. Naturally appellant denied being *322intimate with Triplett but in view of what I have set forth the following from Speck v. Speck, 164 Neb. 506, 82 N. W. 2d 540, has application here: “Direct evidence, of course, is not ordinarily procurable to establish such improper conduct. But where the evidence and circumstances show, as they do here, that every element is present except direct proof of the act itself, the court is not required to close its eyes to the obvious. It may properly determine even as against the protestations of one or both of the parties that the result followed which usually grows out of such a relationship.”
The record in this case presents one of the strongest cases of adultery against a party that I have reviewed since being on the court and, in my opinion, fully satisfies all the requirements as to the burden of proof which is placed on a party seeking a divorce. It presents a factual situation which establishes the fact that appellant is totally unfit to raise the minor children and the sooner they are removed from her custody and placed with appellee the better it will be for their future welfare.