Rogers v. Haines

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for damages for the alienation of the affections of a wife. The judgment was entered upon the rendering of the verdict of a jury. A reversal is sought upon the sole ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

The plaintiff and Gladys Cheney were married at Jackson, California, December 10, 1922. They immediately moved to Marshfield, Oregon, where they established a home and for some time lived happily. A daughter, Betty, was born as the issue of the marriage in 1924. Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, the parents of Mrs. Rogers, lived near lone, California, where her father was engaged in the occupation of hunting and trapping predatory animals. They had a son, named Albert, who was born in 1912. The defendant was a divorced man who lived at lone with his mother and infant daughter as neighbors of Mrs. Rogers’ parents. The defendant was engaged in raising sheep. In the summer of 1925, Mrs. Rogers visited her parents at lone and then met and associated with the defendant. After a visit of several weeks she returned to her home at Marshfield. Mr. Haines accompanied her as far as Sacramento. About two weeks later the defendant made an excuse to drive with a new Hudson automobile up to Oregon. Pie claimed that he was seeking to purchase sheep. He invited Albert, the twelve year old brother of Mrs. Rogers, to accompany him and drove directly to the home of the plaintiff at Marsh-field. It.is evident that the pretense of seeking for sheep

[193]

was a mere subterfuge and that the journey to Oregon was prompted solely by his interest in Mrs. Rogers. This is obvious for the reason that western Oregon is not a sheep country and during the time the defendant was there he made no effort to purchase sheep. Moreover, his invitation to take the boy Albert to his sister’s home indicates this was really his destination. He had never before met the plaintiff. When he arrived at Marshfield he was invited to remain as a guest at the Rogers’ home. He accepted the invitation and remained for about ten days. The plaintiff was employed at the mill as a wheelwright and his occupation kept him away from home during the daytime. During this period of time the defendant was a constant companion of Mrs. Rogers, remaining at her home with her during the absence of her husband or taking her to ride in his automobile. Certain incidents clearly indicate that she exhibited undue interest in the defendant and neglected her husband. She became critical of her husband and he was an unwelcome associate in their games of cards or pleasure excursions. Finally he became suspicious of their conduct and took occasion to return to his home when he was unexpected. On one occasion he found them seated in the kitchen in earnest conference with their chairs and heads in close contact. They gave no explanation for this conduct. On another occasion he found them together in her dressing-room. She was attired only in a slip and was engaged in powdering her face while the defendant stood close by. During this visit of the defendant at Marshfield, the plaintiff once suggested that he and his wife were talking of taking a trip around the world and the defendant said: “Why don’t you get a divorce and go.” No occasion for the suggestion of a divorce appears in the record. Up to the time of the visit of the defendant the record indicates that Mr. and Mrs. Rogers were living happily together. The conduct of the defendant and Mrs. Rogers led to some controversy between plaintiff and his wife and she said to him: “You ain’t like Mr. Haines, Mr. Haines divorced his wife.” The inference is that he should do likewise. While it is true that Mrs. Rogers testified that their subsequent separation occurred because her husband was cruel and that he was engaged in bootlegging, she specified no act of cruelty and he emphatically refutes both charges. Mrs. Dalzell