Furthermore, the Court of Appeal, based upon the testimonies of Silby, Gouda and Saker and the allegation of the appellant's attorney in the Court of First Instance (see record of October 20, 1934) opined that the appellant had the actual malicious intent to mortgage the land and building on Rue Potiere in a fraudulent way which could not be denied by the appellant with mere empty words. Granting that the appellant had disbursed sums of money for the appellee, the appellant could recover same by lawful means, and the appellant could further ask the appellee perform if the appellee had not done her duty of conjugal assistance and there is no necessity for the appellant to dispose of the personal property of the appellee. Aside from the foregoing, custom and usage is only applicable where there is no specification in the Civil Code (Article 1 of the Civil Code). With regard to divorce, there is detailed specification in our Civil Code and it is needless to say that the parties had no right to ask the Court to deal with according to custom and usage.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.