gno.law

Barsic v. Barsic

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 18102 · 1951-03-06 · Published · 102 Cal. App. 2d 660 · 227 P.2d 881 · 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1363

CECELIA v. BARSIC, Respondent, v. JACOB A. BARSIC, Appellant

Area
civil
Panel
Marshall F. McComb (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — McComb

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a complaint for separate maintenance upon the ground of extreme cruelty, and against defendant on his cross-complaint for a divorce also on the ground of extreme cruelty, defendant appeals.

The sole question is:

■ Was there substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s findings that defendant was guilty of acts of extreme cruelty toward plaintiff Yes.

Defendant concedes that plaintiff testified in conformity with the allegations in her complaint that (1) in August, 1944, defendant struck and choked her; (2) in July, 1948, without provocation defendant struck the minor child of the parties with a hammer; and (3) in August, 1948, defendant again struck plaintiff.

Such evidence was sufficient and substantial to support the trial court’s findings ifi accordance therewith. It is to be noted that in an action for separate maintenance corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony is unnecessary.

(Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [183 P. 443].)

Likewise it was for the trial court to determine from the conflicting evidence whether plaintiff had condoned the acts of cruelty of defendant.

(Cf. Farmer v. Farmer, 79 Cal. App.2d 536, 537 [180 P.2d 55].)

Affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wilson, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus