Fessenden v. Fessenden
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtHouck, P. J.
An examination of the record discloses that but two witnesses testified in the trial. The plaintiff was called as a witness in his own behalf, and after he had testified, the trial judge on his own motion called the defendant to the witness stand, and after she had given testimony, the trial judge said: “I will grant him a-divorce on the ground of gross neglect of duty and order him to pay a lump sum of $50 and $10 a week until the first of April, 1929. You may have exceptions.”
Thereupon counsel for defendant requested the court to be permitted to offer other witnesses to testify in behalf of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Holmes v. HolmesWyoming Supreme Court · 1949
- Sinclair v. SinclairOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
- C.W. v. J.S.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
- Morrison v. MorrisonOhio Court of Appeals · 1956