Fleming v. Fleming
Before: Paterson
Synopsis
Divorce — Extreme Cruelty — Consideration of Ciroumstanoes. — What acts of a spouse will constitute extreme cruelty, within the meaning of the statute providing for a divorce upon that ground, cannot he defined with precision; but each case is to be determined, according to its own peculiar circumstances, by the good sense and judgment of the court or jury, keeping always in view the intelligence, apparent refinement, and delicacy of sentiment of the complaining party.
Id. — Grievous Mental Suffering — Question of Fact. — Whether in any given case there has been inflicted grievous mental suffering upon one of the spouses is a pure question of fact to be deduced from all the circumstances of each particular case.
Id.—Pleading — Attempt at Intercourse with Domestic — Publicity of Charge — Injury to Wife’s Health — Conclusiveness of Finding. — Where a complaint, in an action for a divorce by a wife on the ground of extreme cruelty, alleged that the defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse with their domestic, and that such conduct on the part of the defendant received great publicity by reason of a complaint having been made by the domestic before a magistrate, charging the defendant with assault with intent to commit a rape upon her, and that afterwards he threatened to turn the plaintiff out upon the world penniless unless she would help him to keep the domestic from prosecuting him on the complaint, and that such conduct on the part of the defendant, and the publicity given to it, caused the plaintiff grievous mental suffering, thereby greatly impairing her health, it cannot be said, as a matter of ' law, that such conduct did not inflict grievous mental suffering upon her, and a finding by the court that it did is conclusive upon appeal, in the absence of evidence in the record.
Id.—Presumption — Intention to Annoy Wife.—Such conduct of the defendant being voluntary and inconsistent with marital integrity, it will be conclusively presumed that he intended the natural and ordinary effect thereof upon his wife; and the law will not condone the offense, upon the ground that the acts imputed to him were not willfully done to annoy or vex the plaintiff, and that he did not suppose any publicity would be given to them, or that his wife would he told about them.
Paterson, J. This is an action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The material allegations of the complaint are as follows:—■
“ Plaintiff further alleges that on the evening of the eleventh day of March, 1891, the plaintiff and defendant left their home in South Pasadena, in this county, for the purpose of attending a lecture in the city of Los Angeles; that they left their infant child at their said home in the care of their domestic, one Annie Peterson; that after said lecture the plaintiff and her sister went to the house of a friend in the said city of Los Angeles for the purpose of spending the night there; that the der fendant returned to their said home and found the said Annie Peterson in bed and asleep; that defendant then and there entered the bed of said Annie Peterson, and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her; that he-tried to persuade her that it would not be wrong for him and her to have sexual intercourse together; that he remained in bed with the said Annie Peterson for upwards of two hours before retiring to his own room; that this conduct on the part of defendant has received great publicity by reason of a complaint having been made by the said Annie Peterson before a magistrate in the city and county of Los Angeles, charging the defendant with having at said time and place assaulted her with intent to commit a rape upon her; that afterwards the said defendant came to plaintiff and threatened to turn her out upon the world penniless unless she would help him to keep the said Annie Petersonx from prosecuting him on the said complaint; that this conduct on the part of the defendant, and the publicity which has been given to it, has caused plaintiff grievous mental suffering, thereby greatly impairing her health."
The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute [434]a cause of action, the demurrer was overruled, defendant offered no further defense to the action, the court upon the proofs taken found the facts alleged in the complaint .to be true, and judgment was entered in favor of the tplaintiff, dissolving the bonds of matrimony. From this judgment the defendant has appealed, and now insists that the demurrer ought to have been sustained, because the facts alleged are insufficient to support a finding of extreme cruelty-.
Gur statute provides that “ extreme cruelty is the infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering upon the other by one party to the marriage.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)