Bruner v. Bruner

Yellott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the ltth day of April, 1888, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, a bill was filed by Martha S. Bruner against her husband, Joseph B. Bruner. The plaintiff alleges in "her said, bill that her husband has not, during the last four years, contributed to her support or that of her child, and that she has been compelled to depend upon the kindness of her parents for her maintenance; that her said husband has abandoned and deserted her; that such abandonment has continued uninterruptedly for at least three years; that it is deliberate and final, and that the separation of the parties is such that there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation. The plaintiff asks for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii.

On the 2nd day of June, 1888, the defendant filed his answer, admitting the facts of marriage, and birth of children, but denying the verity of all the allegations of such facts set forth in the bill as form the foundation of the prayer for the relief invoked by the ¹⁰⁷ plaintiff. The Court below declined to pass a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, hut, on the 12th day of July, passed a decree divorcing the parties a mensa et thoro. From this decree both parties have appealed. The Court below was certainly right in refusing to grant a divorce a vinculo as prayed for in the hill of complaint.

There is no evidence in this record sufficient to prove the fact of an abandonment. It is time that for some time before the institution of this suit, the parties had not been living together. He had sought and obtained employment in .Hew York, and she was living in Baltimore with her parents, who seem to have been abundantly able to afford her support. But the parties maintained a constant correspondence and her letters are such as an affectionate wife, would write.

His letters must have been of the same character, for in each of her letters she speaks of “his welcome letter” just received. A “welcome letter” from husband to wife must have been a kind and affectionate letter. This correspondence continued until the 10th of April, 1888, and in all her letters she expresses an earnest hope that they will soon he reunited. Such evidence conclusively disproves the allegation of abandonment without hope of reconciliation.

There seems to he no proof in this record sufficient to support a decree a mensa et thoro. Ho allegation of cruelty appears in the hill of complaint, nor is there, in the record, any evidence tending to establish the fact of harsh and cruel