Session v. Session.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Session v. Session.

123 So. 639, 168 La. 957, 1929 La. LEXIS 1905

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 17, 1929

DocketNo. 29451.

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 639 (Session v. Session.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Session v. Session., 123 So. 639, 168 La. 957, 1929 La. LEXIS 1905 (La. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, C. J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment of separation from bed and board. The cause for the separation was cruel treatment on the part of the defendant, of such a nature as to make it intolerable for the plaintiff to live with him. On two occasions he abused her mercilessly, and on one of those occasions slapped her and threatened to kill her. She left in great fear of him, and has been afraid ever since to return. His defense is that his anger and abuse of his wife was provoked by a grave indiscretion on her part. There'is some truth in the plea, but we are not prepared to say that the district judge erred in his finding that the provocation was not justification for the defendant’s cruelty towards his wife. It is now nearly three years since she left him, and it is not more likely now that they would become reconciled without a decree of separation than with one. There is no question of law in the ease; and the record does not disclose that the district judge was in error as to the facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

OVERTON, J., dissents.

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

O’NIELL, C. J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment of separation from bed and board. The cause for the separation was cruel treatment on the part of the defendant, of such a nature as to make it intolerable for the plaintiff to live with him. On two occasions he abused her mercilessly, and on one of those occasions slapped her and threatened to kill her. She left in great fear of him, and has been afraid ever since to return. His defense is that his anger and abuse of his wife was provoked by a grave indiscretion on her part. There'is some truth in the plea, but we are not prepared to say that the district judge erred in his finding that the provocation was not justification for the defendant’s cruelty towards his wife. It is now nearly three years since she left him, and it is not more likely now that they would become reconciled without a decree of separation than with one. There is no question of law in the ease; and the record does not disclose that the district judge was in error as to the facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

OVERTON, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 639, 168 La. 957, 1929 La. LEXIS 1905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/session-v-session-la-1929.