Scales v. Scales

Hart, J., (after stating the facts). It is the well settled rule of this court that the indignities offered which entitle one to a divorce, under the statute, must be habitual and systematically pursued to an extent that would render intolerable the life of the one upon whom the indignities are imposed. Simpkins v. Simpkins, 136 Ark. 588; Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150; and Davis v. Davis, 163 Ark. 263. It is also well settled by these decisions that divorces will not be granted upon the uncorroborated testimony of either party, even if admitted to be true by the other party. While we have not copied the testimony in full, we have set it out in detail in the language of the witnesses as it appears in the record. Upon a consideration of this testimony, a majority of the court is of the opinion that the chancellor was warranted in rendering a decree for the husband on his cross-complaint. According to the testimony of the husband, his wife had left him twice before, and he had treated her as well as his condition in life would allow. According to his testimony and that of Hazel Graves, his wife called him a son of a bitch on the night she left him. This occurred on Monday night, the 4th of June, 1923. According to the testimony of William Ramsey, he was at their house on the Sunday before, and Mrs. Scales told him then that she was going’ to leave her husband. She said the trouble came up about one Mr. Jim Tom Barnett, who was boarding with them. It is also inferable from the testimony of Hazel Graves that they quarreled about a man who had been boarding there, and who had p'aid them six dollars. According to the testimony of Ramsey, Mrs. Scales was continually nagging her husband, and when they would get in company ‘‘ she would try to throw it into him. ’’ He stated further that she crossed him in everything and would not agree with him in anything. The majority of the court is of the opinion that this testimony, when taken in connection with her cursing him, shows that the nagging and cursing her husband was of the same character as her conduct on the night she left. They think that the language" used on that night was indicative of the language she used towards her husband when Ramsey said that she would “nag him” and “throw it into him.” Therefore they think that the chancellor was justified in granting a decree of divorce to the husband on the statutory ground alleged in his cross-complaint. On the other hand, Judge Wooo and the writer think that this corroborative testimony was too indefinite, and that the witness should have been required to state what was meant by “nagging” and “throwing it into her husband.” "We think they meant petty fault-finding. These expressions and the further expression that “she crossed him in everything and would not agree with him in anything,” amounted to no more than an expression of opinion on the part of the witness. Hence we think that the chancellor erred in granting the divorce. It results, however, from the views of the majority of the court that the decision of the chancellor was correct, and it will therefore be affirmed.