Nos. 18,597—(131) | Minn. | Jun 12, 1914
This is a divorce case in which the plaintiff husband charged ■cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of his wife. Defendant ■denied the charge; and the issues were tried by the court without .a jury. The. court found the charges of cruelty true, and ordered
The assignments of error call in question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court, and its conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to a divorce.
The only witnesses who testified at the trial were the plaintiff, the defendant, and a brother of plaintiff. Each was called as a witness by plaintiff. Defendant was first called for cross-examination under the statute; she admitted that she had accused plaintiff of being out with .other women, and clearly indicated her belief in the truth of her accusations. She positively denied any conduct on her own part, other than from time to time accusing defendant of spending his time with other women and pleading with him to spend it with her, that in any way tended to show cruel and inhuman treatment. The substance of plaintiff’s testimony was that defendant was dissatisfied with the home that he furnished her, called him vile names, frequently accused him of running around with other women, constantly nagged him and on occasions followed him when he was out in the evening. Plaintiff testified to a course of nagging, quarreling, calling names, making charges of infidelity, that finally resulted in his becoming a nervous wreck and losing flesh. November ■25, 1912, according to plaintiff, -defendant refused to live with him any longer, and told him to take his trunk and leave. It appeared, however, that three days before this the parties had entered into a written agreement to live separately.
Thus far, manifestly, there was nothing but the testimony of the parties, and E. L. 1905, § 4746 (G. S. 1913, § 8465), provides that “divorces shall not be granted on the sole confessions, admissions, or testimony of the parties, either in or out of court.” This was the law even in the absence of a statute. True v. True, 6 Minn. 315 (458). The admissions or confessions of a party are admissible, as is the testimony of the parties, but there must be corroboration. In Clark v. Clark, 86 Minn. 249" court="Minn." date_filed="1902-05-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/clark-v-clark-7972202?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7972202">86 Minn. 249, 90 N. W. 390, it was held that this statute does not require that the complaining party
The claim is made that the brother’s testimony, as to the charges made by defendant against plaintiff, was not corroborating testimony, but- was merely testimony as to the admissions of defendant. There is no merit in this claim. He was testifying directly to the acts of cruelty relied on by plaintiff, the false charges of infidelity. We hold that the corroborating evidence was sufficient.
Taking the testimony as a whole, we are unable to say that the findings of the trial court are not justified by the evidence. There was no attempt to show that defendant’s charges were true, or that she had reasonable grounds for her evident conviction that her husband was unfaithful. Clearly, matters between this husband and wife had reached a state where living together was out of the question. The trial court had the parties before it, and decided that
Order affirmed.