Williams v. Williams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, ’Chancellor; 1. The testimony fails to show that defendant was an habitual drunkard for more than one year. Her testimony, except as to an occasional spree, is not supported. Neither is her testimony as to cruelty and indignities supported by any testimony except by a daughter nine years old. 76 Ark. 28. 2. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the decree.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, ’Chancellor; 1. The testimony fails to show that defendant was an habitual drunkard for more than one year. Her testimony, except as to an occasional spree, is not supported. Neither is her testimony as to cruelty and indignities supported by any testimony except by a daughter nine years old. 76 Ark. 28. 2. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the decree. The finding of a chancellor is merely persuasive. 41 Ark. 292. 1. The grounds set up for divorce were proven and there is no error in the findings of the chancellor. Kirby’s Digest, ■§…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action for divorce brought by Mary Williams against W. E. Williams on the statutory grounds that her husband had been addicted to habitual drunkenness for the space of one year and offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable. iShe also alleged that since their marriage she had purchased and paid for a home in the town of Des Arc, by her own earnings. She asked that her title to this be quieted.
The court entered a decree of divorce in her favor and also decreed that the title to the home in Des Arc be vested in her. The defendant has appealed.
One of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kurtz v. KurtzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Kientz v. KientzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Haley v. HaleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Cate v. CateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- O'Kane v. O'KaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.