Appeltofft v. Appeltofft

Urner., J., 'delivered, the opinion of the Court. A hill for .a divorce ai mensa et tboro', on the ground of ' excessively vicious conduct, was filed by the appellant against her husband', the appellee, who filed an ¡answer denying the alleged misconduct and also a cross-bill charging the appellant with adultery .and praying for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii: The ease was 'heard by the lower court on the oral testimony ¡of the parties and their witnesses, and the trial resulted' in ¡a; decree dismissing the bill of the wife and granting an absolute divorce for the cause alleged in the ■cross-bill of the husband. The answer of the wife to the cross-bill neither admitted nor denied the adultery of which she was accused, but the defense sought to be interposed in the testimlomy and argument was that the wife is innocent of the offense charged, and' that even if she were guilty, her husband’s abusive and violent treatment of her, and certain ■conduct on his paid which is said to have encouraged a breach of her marriage vows, constitute a bar to his crossHSuit for a divorce on the ground of her infidelity. Upon the proof in the record we have no alternative but to •agree with 'the conclusion of the court below that the charge •of adultery has been sustained.

The .appellant, while denying the adultery, admitted! her acceptance of affectionate' attentions from- the man suspected! of being her’ paramour, and he testified specifically to their illicit relations. On one •occasion they were discovered' -and interrupted by a witness while they were in the very act of adultery, 'according- to his testimony. The ■existence of the compromising situation described by that witness was acknowledged by the appellant, but she asserted that the act was- being imsuccessfully attempted! .against her will. In view of the proved and admitted! circumstances, her denial is not convincing.

The testimony in the case will not be here reviewed in detail. It ⁶⁰⁵ leave® no room, for reasonable doubt as to- the appellant’s marital misconduct. Tbe evidence also p-rove® that the -ap-pellee’s treatment of his wife was repeatedly brutal 'and insulting. It would have been a cl-early sufficient ground for a -divorce a mensa et thoro under the Maryland law if the wife’s own conduct had been free of the fault -alleged and proved. liter uncondoned adultery, which occurred before the separation, hut did not come to- the husband’s knowledge prior to that event, precludes a ■decree for a partial divorce on -her application.

Martin v. Martin, 141 Md. 182 . The question -as to whether the husband’s cross-suit for an absolute divorce is barred by conduct o-n his part which would have entitled the wife to a decree a mensa et thoro has been determined in the recent unreportad case of Pryor v. Pryor. (See 146 Md. 683 ). In that case the opinion of the Count, prepared by Judge Adkins, contained the following, statement-: “Py the great preponderance of authorities in this -country,