
    Gordon v. Gordon.
   Hill, J.

The uncontroverted evidence in this case supported the allegations of the libel for divorce; and the juiy having returned a verdict contrary to the uncontroverted evidence, the verdict for the defendant was unauthorized, and the court below erred in refusing a new trial based only on the usual general grounds. Civil Code (1910), §§ 2945, 2946.

No. 3795.

July 20, 1923.

Libel for divorce. Before Judge Sheppard. Effingham superior court. May 7, 1923.

Janie Gordon brought libel for a total divorce ■ against James Gordon, on the ground of cruel treatment. The plaintiff in her petition alleged that the defendant on a date named, for no sufficient cause whatever, but on account of a trivial dispute which had arisen between him and some other member of the family, became violently enraged, and when plaintiff made some reply to his violent and abusive language he undertook to beat.her, and was only prevented from inflicting violent injuries by the interposition of his son-in-law; that immediately afterwards he told plaintiff that.he intended to kill her; and plaintiff, believing her life was in danger and that the defendant really intended to inflict violent injuries lipón her, immediately left his home, going to the residence of her son; that the conduct of her husband was merely a continuation of years of cruelty inflicted upon her; that defendant on several occasions violently beat and choked plaintiff to such an extent that she was forced to leave and did leave the defendant, and only returned upon his promise never again to so treat her, but the defendant did not regard his promises but has so continuously, harshly, and cruelly treated her that her life has not only been endangered but her peace and comfort with him was rendered impossible, etc. The defendant filed an answer in which he denied’ the material allegations of the petition. The answer was not sworn to nor offered in evidence.

The only witness offered on the trial of the case was the plaintiff, who gave evidence as follows: “My name is Janie Gordon. I am the wife of James Gordon. We were married about nine years ago. We are not living together now, and have not for a long time. My husband drove me from my home, at his house, in the early part of the year 1920. He has all my personal things now. He never would let me have them. I left him the next morning after he beat and choked me. He started on me about four o’clock in the morning, and he beat me in the face and body. I ran out of the house; he followed me to the yard, threw me down and began to beat and choke me, His daughter and son-in-law took him off me. He said he intended to kill me. He choked me until the prints of his fingers were left on my throat. I was so afraid he would kill me, that I ran out of the house in my night clothes, and borrowed the money to get to Savannah next morning. This was the third time we had parted, and it has always been because he treated me so cruelly. I went back to him before on his promise not to treat me cruelly. He told me that if I would come back each time that he would do better, but he grew worse instead of better. I was afraid of him. He told me that if I did not get out of his house he would kill me, and I believed he would. I had not done a thing to bring on the last beating he gave me. . He got to talking about the children, his children; one word brought on another, when he began to curse me and then to beat me. There was surely nothing to fight me for, but he is cross and high-tempered. I have done; ever since I married him, all as a wife I could. I worked in the field and at home with him ever since we married, and helped him to make a living. (Cross examination). No, I have never been untrue to him as a wife. Yes, a man did write me two letters, but I could not help that. Jim knew all about those letters. We have lived together since the letters were written, and since Jim knew all about them. He has choked and beaten me, and threatened to kill me. He never did accuse me of being intimate with Younge, until after he had driven me off. Yes, Younge did come down to Jim’s house when I was at home, but the children were there, and Younge didn’t come to see me. He came to see Jim, I suppose. They were friends. It is not true that at any time in my life, Younge was my sweetheart, or that he met me anywhere. Yes, my husband has prosecuted me for adultery with Ed. Younge; and it is a falsehood, and all done by Jim to hurt me.”

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., dissenting.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, upon the usual general grounds, which was overruled, and she excepted.

Don. H. Olarlc, for plaintiff. II. G. Dulces, for defendant.  