Page Township of Beaver Creek. Bab cock v. (Mich.).. 423 Township of Clinton, Harris v. (Mich.).. 425 Township of New Buffalo, Phillips v. (Mich.).. Western Mut. Benev. Ass'n, Griffin v. (Neb.).. 122 581 779 356 710 762 510 327 Underhill v. Shea (Neb.)... 956 Vander Weier, Teipel v. (Minn.).... 934 Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., Ecliff Western Union Mut. Life Accident 797 180 Wold v. Ordway (Wis.). 759 786 Woodbury v. City of Owosso 601 (Mich.). 130 20 953 Wright, Griswold v. (Wis.). 42 Wright & Lauther Oil & Lead 766 Manuf'g Co. v. Kleigel (Io.)...... 878 Wayne Circuit Judges, Swift v. (Mich.).. Young v. Erie Iron Co. (Mich.)..... 814 434 Zinn, Arnett v. (Neb.)... 240 See End of Index for Tables of Northwestern Cases in State Reports. ERRATA. On page 135, (Harris v. Piatt,) third line of paragraph 1 of syllabus, for "parties, to which," read "parties, which." On page 185, (Ross v. Miner,) fourth line of paragragh 1 of syllabus, for "vendor," read "vendee." On page 535, (Post v. Township of Sparta,) third line of syllabus, for "bond exempt," read "bond not exempt.' On page 719, (Town of Saukville v. Town of Grafton,) eighth line of paragraph 1 of syllabus, omit word "not" at end of line. t THE Northwestern Reporter. VOLUME XXXI. POWERS v. POWERS. (Supreme Court of Nebraska. January 6, 1887.) 1. PLEADING-WAIVER OF DEFECTS-OBJECTIONS-DECREE. A petition, when assailed after decree, will be held sufficient, if the facts stated constitute a cause of action, even though informally and indefinitely stated. Such defects must be corrected, by motion, before answer or demurrer, or they will be deemed to be waived. 2. APPEAL CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. In a case brought to the supreme court on appeal, where no question of law is involved, and the testimony is conflicting and pretty evenly balanced, the finding of the court will not be disturbed. Callahan v. Callahan, 7 Neb. 38. 3. SAME-FINDING SUSTAINED. Evidence examined, and held to support the finding of the district court. (Syllabus by the Court.) Appeal from Saline county. G. W. Bemis and Dawes, Foss & Stephens, for plaintiff. Dilworth & Smith and Harwood, Ames & Kelly, for defendant. REESE, J. This is an appeal from Saline county. The action was brought to obtain a divorce, alimony, and the custody of a minor child. A decree for divorce, the custody of the child, $2,500 alimony, and $150 per year for the support of the minor child was rendered. Defendant appeals from the decree granting the divorce and custody of the child to plaintiff, and plaintiff complains that the allowance of alimony is too small. Two grounds for divorce are alleged in the petition,-habitual drunkenness and extreme cruelty. The finding of the district court was in favor of plaintiff upon the charge of extreme cruelty, but not as to habitual drunkenness. Some objection is made to the petition as not being sufficiently explicit in the allegations of extreme cruelty. These allegations are as follows: "(4) That the defendant, wholly regardless of his duties as a husband, has for the last five years treated the plaintiff with extreme cruelty without any provocation; that for more than five years preceding the twenty-second of March, 1884, he was and has been guilty of extreme cruelty to her; that on many occasions he frequently struck her; that he would use abusive, vulgar, and opprobrious epithets of and to her; that he accused her of being unchaste and untrue to him, threatened her life, and put her in fear of doing her bodily harm; that, when lady friends were visiting her, he was sullen, cross, and insolent; that his conduct in this respect became so notorious and unbearable that her friends ceased to visit her; that on the twenty-second day of v.31N.w.no.1-1 |