Opinion
No. 7815.
October 7, 1952.
APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT, FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, BANNOCK COUNTY, ISAAC McDOUGALL, J.
Anderson Anderson, Pocatello, for appellant.
Jones, Pomeroy Jones, Pocatello, for respondent.
To justify a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty causing mental suffering, the proof of the existence and cause of said suffering must be plain, and its serious effect on the present health, as well as its menace of real danger to life, must be shown with an unusual degree of certainty. 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 140, p. 747; Annen v. Annen, 79 Cal.App. 626, 250 P. 580; Truax v. Truax, 62 Cal.App.2d 441, 145 P.2d 88; Negly v. Negly, 82 Cal.App.2d 355, 186 P.2d 151; Farrand v. Farrand, 77 Cal.App.2d 840, 176 P.2d 773.
Supreme Court will not disturb a finding of the trial court that the particular acts constitute grievous mental suffering, unless the evidence in support of such finding is so slight as to indicate a want of ordinary good judgment and an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Donaldson v. Donaldson, 31 Idaho 180, 170 P. 94; DeCloedt v. DeCloedt, 24 Idaho 277, 133 P. 664; Little v. Little, 29 Idaho 292, 158 P. 559.
Appellant sued respondent, her husband, for separate maintenance, alleging his refusal to support her, abandonment, and physical mistreatment.
Respondent denied her accusations and cross-complained for divorce on the grounds of her making false accusations of immoral relations with other women and infection with a venereal disease — all causing him mental suffering.
The appeal herein is from the decree granting respondent a divorce, and all appellant's assignments of error center in the contention the evidence is insufficient to support the findings.
The trial judge is the arbiter of conflicting evidence and his determination of the weight, credibility, inferences and implications thereof is not to be supplanted by this Court's impressions or conclusions from the written record. Piatt v. Piatt, 32 Idaho 407, 184 P. 470; Cox v. Cox, 45 Idaho 49, 260 P. 693; Clark v. Clark, 58 Idaho 37, 69 P.2d 980; Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 68 Idaho 275, 193 P.2d 391.
Appellant urges that accusations of the kind made here, though false, nevertheless if based upon probable cause, would not constitute cruelty. The trial court saw and heard the witnesses and could thus better determine whether there was probable cause and whether the charges were false or baseless, and also determine the effect of the charges on respondent's health.
There was substantial evidence to which the trial court could give credence that there was no reasonable justification or, indeed, any justification for the accusations and that they were false and that respondent's health was injuriously affected thereby.
Conceding that other conclusions could have been drawn, the evidence is sufficient to support his findings and conclusion drawn therefrom, and it would serve no useful purpose to go into the details of the evidence pro or con.
The decree is, therefore, affirmed.
PORTER, TAYLOR, THOMAS, and KEETON, JJ., concur.