Kayatta v. Kayatta

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Kayatta v. Kayatta

6 R.I. Dec. 115

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 1, 1930

DocketDiv. No. 23774

StatusPublished

This text of 6 R.I. Dec. 115 (Kayatta v. Kayatta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kayatta v. Kayatta, 6 R.I. Dec. 115 (R.I. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

BLODGETT, P. j.

In the above petition for divorce Walter J. Hennessey, a member of this bar, was appointed guardian ad litem of respondent on November 15, 1929, by reason of the fact that respondent had been committed to the 'State Hospital for Mental Diseases on January 8, 1927.

The parties were married August 4, 1908, and the testimony shows that from the time of the marriage up to the date of his commitment to the asylum, the respondent not only failed to support his wife, who was compelled to work, herself, during this entire period, but also at times treated her with extreme cruelty.

The court is of the opinion that the respondent knew the difference between right and wrong and had sufficient mental ability to appreciate the marriage relation and his obligation toward the petitioner, and that he, up to the time of his commitment, failed to properly support his wife.

Decision for the petitioner on the ground of neglect to provide.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLODGETT, P. j.

In the above petition for divorce Walter J. Hennessey, a member of this bar, was appointed guardian ad litem of respondent on November 15, 1929, by reason of the fact that respondent had been committed to the 'State Hospital for Mental Diseases on January 8, 1927.

The parties were married August 4, 1908, and the testimony shows that from the time of the marriage up to the date of his commitment to the asylum, the respondent not only failed to support his wife, who was compelled to work, herself, during this entire period, but also at times treated her with extreme cruelty.

The court is of the opinion that the respondent knew the difference between right and wrong and had sufficient mental ability to appreciate the marriage relation and his obligation toward the petitioner, and that he, up to the time of his commitment, failed to properly support his wife.

Decision for the petitioner on the ground of neglect to provide.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 R.I. Dec. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kayatta-v-kayatta-risuperct-1930.