Opinion
No. 4101.
Decided April 26, 1952.
The award of certain property to the husband upon granting his cross petition for legal separation was justified on all the evidence.
PETITION AND CROSS PETITION, for legal separation. The original petitioner, Regina L. Malbouf, voluntarily dismissed her petition before hearing and the cross petition of Daniel J. Malbouf was heard uncontested insofar as the granting of a decree of separation was involved. The Court granted Daniel a legal separation on the ground of extreme cruelty, decreeing that the real estate in the joint names of the husband and wife should become his sole property and that he should have also all household furnishings and furniture not paid for by the wife with her own money. She was given $1,500 in cash and the furnishings and furniture for which she had paid with her own money. Upon her exceptions to the decree of the Court and to the refusal to grant her motion to set it aside, the case was transferred by Sullivan, J. Other facts appear in the opinion.
John W. King (by brief and orally), for Regina L. Malbouf.
Sheehan, Phinney Bass (Mr. Phinney orally), for Daniel J. Malbouf.
The only question before us is whether there is evidence to support the Trial Court's decree with reference to the division of property. Ballou v. Ballou, 95 N.H. 105, and cases cited. We believe that there is such evidence and therefore the exceptions must be overruled. Ballou v. Ballou, supra. The record discloses testimony on which the Court could find that the reason for the break up of this home after twenty-five years of reasonably successful existence was that the wife had become attached to another man and refused to give him up in spite of the husband's offers to let bygones be bygones, if she would only do so. It could also be found that the husband has been an exceptionally steady and hard working man since their marriage and has contributed by far the major portion of the money and effort to the purchase and maintenance of their home. Further important considerations are that the wife is self-supporting, and earning some $40 weekly, while as to their two children, one is married and the other is self-supporting.
We do not believe it necessary to further detail the evidence as the record shows that the Court acted well within the bounds of reason.
Decree affirmed.
All concurred.