{ "id": 8574802, "name": "TRUDY BUCK GASKINS v. WILLIAM EARL GASKINS", "name_abbreviation": "Gaskins v. Gaskins", "decision_date": "1968-02-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "133", "last_page": "135", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "273 N.C. 133" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628042 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E. 2d 923", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627458 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0686-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S.E. 2d 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625392 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0412-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 307, "char_count": 3891, "ocr_confidence": 0.588, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08, "percentile": 0.5230831990590957 }, "sha256": "878d19431b5187edafe23f8223b9b3f97d58fb3756b6c5b0bcdf70417469fef7", "simhash": "1:131c11ae53912e1d", "word_count": 654 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:42.272754+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "TRUDY BUCK GASKINS v. WILLIAM EARL GASKINS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nTo establish her right to alimony under G.S. 50-16, plaintiff undertook to prove that defendant, by his assaults and cruel treatment, had put her in such fear for her safety that she was compelled to leave home. In such a situation, the abandonment would be his \u2014 not hers \u2014 and the judge so instructed the jury. Bailey v. Bailey, 243 N.C. 412, 90 S.E. 2d 696; Caddell v. Caddell, 236 N.C. 686, 73 S.E. 2d 923; Eggleston v. Eggleston, 228 N.C. 668, 47 S.E. 2d 243. The crucial question, therefore, was who abandoned whom. The jury, under proper instructions, answered the determinative issue against plaintiff.\nWe have carefully examined each assignment of error, and in the trial we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sam B. Underwood, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.", "M. E. Cavendish for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TRUDY BUCK GASKINS v. WILLIAM EARL GASKINS.\n(Filed 28 February, 1968.)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 16\u2014\nA wife may establish a right to alimony under G.S. 50-16 by a showing that she was compelled to leave home in fear of her safety as a result of defendant\u2019s assaults and cruel treatment, and in such case the husband will be deemed to have abandoned the wife, but the weight and the credibility of the wife\u2019s evidence is a matter for the jury.\n* Appeal by plaintiff from' Bundy, J., 25 September 1967 Regular Civil Session of Pitt. ,\nPlaintiff and defendant were married on 23 January 1947 and lived together until 27 November 1966, when plaintiff left the home which she and defendant had occupied with their three children, aged 19, 16, and 13 years. Plaintiff alleged, and offered evidence tending to show:\nOn the day of the separation, defendant, \u201cin one of his not unusual fits of temper,\u201d assaulted and threatened to kill plaintiff. Their children, who were present, prevented him from choking her. During the altercation, defendant fell to the floor, where he lay, bleeding from his face and apparently unconscious, for a half hour. Plaintiff was unable to go to his assistance because she was \u201cin worse fix than he was,\u201d and she was also afraid to touch him. Later in the day, defendant permitted his father to order her from the premises, thereby forcing her to make her home with her parents. Since then, defendant has contributed nothing to her support and has refused to allow her to return to the family residence. During the twenty years she lived with defendant, she worked both in the home and on his farm; she was in all respects a diligent and dutiful wife.\nDefendant\u2019s allegations and evidence tended to show: He is a farmer. For several years he has been incapacitated by arthritis and unable to do manual labor. On Sunday, 27 November 1966, plaintiff had an argument with their eldest daughter in the kitchen. When he went in to quell the disturbance, his wife threatened him with a knife. After his son had disarmed her, she attempted to scratch defendant, who tried to push her away from him. She continued, however, to slap and scratch him, and he collapsed on the floor. Defendant\u2019s children called his father, who called plaintiff\u2019s parents. They came and took plaintiff away with them. Relations between plaintiff and defendant had been unsatisfactory for the preceding five years. She had assaulted him on \u201cany number of times before.\u201d Notwithstanding, on Christmas day 1966, defendant asked plaintiff to return home, but she refused.\nThe marriage of the parties (which was admitted) was established by the jury\u2019s answer to the first issue. The second issue, which the jury answered No, embraced the controversy: \u201cDid defendant wrongfully abandon the plaintiff and fail to provide her with necessary subsistence on and after November 27, 1966, as alleged in the complaint?\u201d\nThere was no exception to the two issues submitted, and no others were tendered. From judgment decreeing \u201cthat plaintiff is not entitled to permanent alimony from defendant,\u201d plaintiff appealed.\nSam B. Underwood, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nM. E. Cavendish for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0133-01", "first_page_order": 169, "last_page_order": 171 }