Blanchard v. Blanchard

BURNETT, J.

Plaintiff was granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty. Many specific acts are alleged in support of the general conclusion that for years defendant has pursued “a-course of cruel treatment of plaintiff and has caused her grievous mental suffering.”

These allegations are denied by the answer and the testimony of the parties is sharply conflicting. As stated by him, “The main point relied upon by appellant is that there is a total want of corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony to justify the judgment and findings of the court.”

In the determination of the question the following considerations are important: In the nature of the case no rule can be laid down as to the degree of corroboration required. The statute requires only some corroborative evidence.

(Evans

v.

Evans,

41 Cal. 103;

Cooper

v.

Cooper,

88 Cal. 45, [25 Pac. 1062]; Civ. Code, sec. 130.) Again, while the courts are bound by the terms of the statute in determining the sufficiency of the corroboration, it is proper to consider the purpose of the legislature in exacting it. The purpose mainly was to prevent collusion.

(Andrews

v.

Andrews,

120 Cal. 186, [52 Pac. 298].) And where the cruelty consists of successive acts of ill-treatment, it is sufficient corroboration if a considerable number of important and material facts are so testified to by other witnesses, or there is other evidence, circumstantial or direct, which strongly tends to strengthen and confirm the statements of the plaintiff.

(Andrews

v.

Andrews,

120 Cal. 186, [52 Pac. 298].)

It is to be remembered, also, that while incompatibility of temperament furnishes no ground for divorce in this state, it may properly be taken into consideration as explaining the course of conduct of defendant. And taken into consideration for that purpose, it may afford a reasonable explanation