Blankenship v. Blankenship

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County dated October 14, 1964, granting an absolute divorce as prayed to Garland1 W. Blankenship, appellee, and dismissing the cross-bill of complaint of Sadie B. Blankenship, appellant. The wife contends: 1) that there was no legally sufficient corroboration of the husband’s testimony; and 2) that, regardless of corroboration, the chancellor was clearly wrong in finding the evidence to be sufficient to establish the fact of the wife’s adultery. We find no substantial merit in either contention.

On August 1, 1963 the plaintiff-husband filed a bill of complaint alleging that the defendant-wife had deserted him on February 27, 1963; he prayed for a divorce a mensa et thoro and for a determination of the ownership of certain personal property. On August 21st the defendant answered the bill and filed a cross-bill alleging cruelty of treatment, excessively vicious con ⁵⁰¹ duct, and a constructive desertion by the husband as of February 27, 1963. She also prayed a partial divorce, a determination of the ownership of various personalty, an in addition, for alimony pendente lite, for a reasonable counsel fee, and for other and further relief. The husband filed a general denial fi> the cross-bill.

Much later, on May 22, 1964, the husband filed a supplemental bill of complaint, with the permission of the court, alleging that the wife had committed adultery on April 11, 1964 “and at various times prior thereto,” and prayed for a divorce a vinmlo matrimonii. The allegation of adultery was denied by the wife. The parties to this litigation were married in 1955. This marriage was the second for each; no children have been born to them.

Several separations between the parties occurred prior to the final separation of February 27, 1963; (two equity suits had been filed in 1962 but both had been voluntarily dismissed). As a result of one of these separations, Mr. Blankenship, the owner since 1954 of Cavalier Radio and Television Sales & Service, purchased a second business, known as Carrollton-Lanham Radio & TV, for his wife. He explained that his wife liked the radio and television-set business but insisted on working apart from him during the day. All of the assets of the Carrollton shop were titled in Mrs. Blankenship’s name.

On February 27, 1963 the husband returned home about 5:30 P.M. to find the wife, and all of her clothes, gone. Testimony revealed that the night before had been the culmination of a long series of quarrels and fighting, physical as well as verbal, the details of which need not be gone into here. In June, 1963 the husband came back to the apartment to find that the front door had been “smashed in,” the storm window, pried open, and that almost all of the furniture had been removed. The police later found that the furniture had been taken by the wife.

In defense Mrs. Blankenship said that Sheriff William J. Jamieson, Sheriff of Prince George’s County, had advised her to take this action. During this entire period Mrs. Blankenship lived apart from her husband, in a succession of apartment houses. Her original decision to leave Mr. Blankenship, she conceded, had also been made on the advice of Sheriff Jamieson. Several months prior to the filing of the supplemental bill of ⁵⁰² complaint the husband began to survey his wife’s apartment, usually in the evenings, the purpose according to him being to discover “why a good marriage went bad.” On at least two occasions, March 23rd and April 10th, he was joined by his brother, John H. Blankenship, and by a friend, Joseph R. Robertson, who was a park policeman and a deputy sheriff of Prince George’s County.

A very light-colored Falcon station-wagon with an antenna on its roof was observed by all three men in front of the wife’s apartment. The husband testified on cross-examination that he had seen the automobile at least fifteen to twenty times between the two dates mentioned above and assumed that its owner lived in the apartment building. The chronicle of the events of the late evening and early morning hours of April 10-11, the time/ during which the wife is alleged to have committed adultery, was stated and evaluated by the chancellor as follows: “Turning to the night of April 10th-llth, the husband observed the wife’s apartment and at approximately 1:50 A.M. in the early hours of the 11th, the wife was observed walking toward her apartment in company with a man who was holding hands with her and were seen to enter therein. After this, the husband left the premises and went to a service station and called his brother and a Mr. Robertson, both of whom arrived on the scene between 2:15 and 2:25 A.M. All three observed the premises until approximately 3:15 A.M., when a man was observed coming through the only entrance to the apartment building, and walking rapidly toward his car.

The three then confronted the man, later identified as the Sheriff, who told them it was none of their business what he was doing in the wife’s apartment. The husband then went alone to the wife’s apartment and told her that he was going to take action against her, and the fact of the presence of the Sheriff in the wife’s apartment was later corroborated both by her testimony and his. “The wife, in her testimony, explained that she had been served with papers in a debt action on the 10th ⁵⁰³ and that she asked that Sheriff Jamieson contact her regarding this matter; she and the Sheriff both contend that the Sheriff had been there on a prior occasion that same night when they drove away from the apartment and were returning from that trip when observed by the husband entering the apartment, and that they drank coffee during the period they were observed to have been in her apartment and discussed facts regarding a case which the Sheriff said he was investigating. However, the Court notes that the Deputy who served the debt papers was never called as a witness, nor were any of the Sheriff’s records ever presented to substantiate facts or matters allegedly discussed by them during this sojourn in the apartment. Our view of the explanations of both the defendant wife and of the Sheriff is that they are naive.” The first of the two witnesses for the defense was Mrs. Blankenship.

She recounted the marital feuds, accusations, and counter-accusations prior to February 27, 1963, the recital of which she concluded with the comment: “So, Sheriff Jamieson advised me then that if he [Mr. Blankenship] wouldn’t leave and I could no longer live with him in the same apartment, then he suggested that I leave. At this point the court interrupted to ask: “Why would you consult with Sheriff Jamieson about a domestic matter, which is a lawyer’s province and not the Sheriff’s? What has he got to do with pulling hair and things like that ? THE WITNESS: Well, I was very, very upset, and there was no use in consulting the Mount Rainier police.

I called them previously and they did nothing. THE COURT: Had you ever previously consulted a lawyer about your domestic problem ? THE WITNESS : Yes, sir. THE COURT: Why didn’t you consult your lawyer, not Sheriff Jamieson? ⁵⁰⁴ THE WITNESS: Well, I can’t answer that.” Mrs. Blankenship’s explanation of Sheriff Jamieson’s presence in her apartment in the late evening and early morning hours is rather confused.

At one point she stated that a former attorney of hers had loaned her $500, which she had been unable to repay; that this former attorney issued a writ of attachment, served by a deputy sheriff, against the radio and television sets for sale in her Lanham store; and that she telephoned the Sheriff and demanded that he come over to her apartment and explain the reason for the attachment of her merchandise. At another point Mrs. Blankenship stated that the Sheriff had informed her that a shipment of stolen TV sets had appeared in the Lanham area, and that he wanted to come over to her apartment and discuss the situation with her, in the hope of learning if she knew which of the local TV merchants was acting as a “fence” for the “hot” goods. The defendant offered no satisfactory explanation, in response to questioning by the court, for the unorthodox time and place of discussing official police business: “THE COURT: What was he doing coming around your place at one thirty in the morning on April 11th? THE WITNESS: Well, you will have to ask him why he came, I mean, why that hour.

THE COURT: Doesn’t that seem to you to be a strange hour for a Sheriff of Prince George’s County to come by to discuss business with you? That didn’t seem strange to you ? THE WITNESS : Well, it was strictly . . . THE COURT: Didn’t that seem strange to you [that] somebody would come by at that hour to talk about summons or papers getting served?

THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Jamieson got there before one thirty. 'THE COURT: All right, Mr. Powers.” When asked, “Now what was the purpose of going into the ⁵⁰⁵ apartment on that second occasion?”—“second occasion” referring to the Sheriff’s return with Mrs. Blankenship after an unexplained ride in the Falcon station-wagon—Mrs. Blankenship replied: “A. He came back in and walked me back to the door and came in. And I asked him if he would like for me to make a pot of coffee. So, I made some coffee. We drank our coffee, then he left. “Q. And he was there just long enough for you to make the coffee and drink it? “A. Well, it takes a while for the coffee to perk and The plaintiff had testified that the Sheriff and his wife were “hand in hand” while walking from the Falcon back to the wife’s apartment.

Mrs. Blankenship confirmed the fact that, after his encounter with the Sheriff, outside, her husband came to her apartment door and announced his intention to charge her with adultery in the pending divorce suit: “Q. Did anybody else come to your apartment door? “A. Yes. There was a knock on this door shortly after Mr. Jamieson left. And I said, ‘Yes, who is it?’ And at first there was no answer. So, I said again, ‘Who is it?’ And it was Mr. Blankenship, he called me by name.

And I could hear some papers outside the door. And he said, T am taking you to Court (and) charging you with adultery with Sheriff Jamieson.’ And I said, ‘You go right ahead.’ ” The second and last witness for the defense was Sheriff Jamieson. It is sufficient for the purposes of this case to say that he conceded most of the facts, heretofore set out, to be true, but emphatically denied any improper motive for being in Mrs. Blankenship’s apartment, at the hours alluded to, and any sexual relationship with her while there. He did not explain the reason for the early-morning automobile ride together except to say: “We went to various locations in the Mt.

Ranier area.” He described the events within the apartment (after the ride) as follows: “We continued to discuss the information ⁵⁰⁶ she had given me, plus a discourse on the faults of her husband, and drank coffee. This took place in the dining room.” He admits the confrontation with Mr. Blankenship and Mr. Robertson upon leaving the apartment (but didn’t recall seeing plaintiff’s brother), and admits making an obscene remark to Mr. Robertson after seeing the latter’s Deputy Sheriff’s badge. (An official letter was later sent by Jamieson to Robertson informing the latter that he was no longer a deputy sheriff of Prince George’s County). When asked if “anything was said [by Mr. Blankenship] about why you were in the apartment with Mrs. Blankenship, his wife,” the Sheriff replied, “No, sir, nothing.” After a subsequent question he amended this reply to: “I think Mr. Blankenship said to me, T am going to charge you with adultery.’ I ignored him.” In many of our sister states the issue of what constitutes corroboration of the testimony of a plaintiff-spouse in a suit for divorce, is somewhat unsettled.

See 27A C.J.S., Divorce, sec. 136 et seq. In Maryland, however, the subject is now governed largely by statute and by rule of court. Maryland Rule S 75 provides: “A final decree of divorce shall not be passed upon