Lang v. Lang

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. George J. Lang, the appellee, filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, in which he alleged that his wife Katherine Elizabeth Lang, the appellant, had committed the offense of adultery with Peter Pohl, and asked therein for an absolute divorce from her. The wife answered the bill, denying the charge alleged against her, and thereafter, upon evidence taken before the court on the issue so joined, a decree was passed granting the relief sought by the bill. The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the charge of adultery made against the wife was established by the evidence produced in the case.

The pai'ties had been married for more than twenty years at the time of the institution of the suit, and as a result of ⁴⁶⁶ that marriage they had one son, George, who was, at that time, nineteen years of age. The corespondent, Peter Pohl, first became known to the husband and wife five or six years before the divorce proceedings were instituted, through his employment by the appellee to paint his house. Thereafter, it seems, Pohl and Lang became intimate friends and Pohl frequently visited Lang’s home, where he was often thrown in company with Lang’s wife. As time went on, Pohl went frequently to Lang’s house when the latter was not at home.

The frequency of these visits led Lang to suspect his wife of improper relations with Pohl and, as a result thereof, he watched her movements in respect thereto. He stated that on one occasion, on leaving his home in the morning, he saw Pohl approaching and, to avoid him, Pohl ducked around the comer. Later Lang returned to- his home and there found Pohl, and, as an excuse for being there, Pohl said he was looking for a coal oil can. On another occasion, upon returning to his home a little earlier than usual, he found his wife- and Pohl in the cellar.

On that occasion Pohl said he was there looking for a piece of wire. In March, 1921, he saw Pohl and his wife enter an automobile at Clinton and Pratt' Streets, about eight-thirty o’clock in the evening. As they entered the car, he ran across'the street and called to them, but they did not stop1. Lang then went to his home, and later, about ten-thirty o’clock, his wife returned.

The next day he said something to her about what he had seen the night before, and she called him a “liar.” Lang further testified that, on a Monday evening in May,, 1921, ho and Gustav Walters, his wife’s brother, were in the vicinity of Calvert and Pleasant Streets, and saw his wife enter Pohl’s car -and drive off with him; that he, with Walters, in the latter’s car, drove to Pohl’s home and was there told' by Mrs. Pohl that her husband had gone to the lodge and’ the building and loan association and was not at home. From there they drove to Pohl’s shore place at Middleboro, which he said was about eight miles from the city. Upon arriving there he found the place dark, and, as said by him, “I walked around the house and I did not see any one, and I stayed; ⁴⁶⁷ there at least an hour and three quarters, and Mr. Pohl then came out of the house and. walked around the house and came down to his machine and went hack in the house. They had a light lit then * * *.

About twenty minutes time they came out * Airs. Lang wrapping up a little package of some kind, and she comes down and gets into the machine, and Mr. Pohl comes down and no more than he has started the car, I had a log of wood and I run in the back of the machine and jumped on the running board and hit him and the log broke, and Air. Pohl hollered ‘Oh!’, and he had his car in reverse, and then I run across the field and pulled out a stake, these lot stakes, and he seen me doing that, and he turned his machine and goes over a field. From there I went home and I stopped in front of his house and he was just about ready to put his car away when we walked over, and my brother-in-law said, ‘Air.

Pohl, what kind of a man are you?’ He said, ‘You shut up, have nothing to do with this,’ and my brother-in-law walked around the ears towards him, and he runs in the garage and gets a shovel and I said ‘.Lay it down, you dirty dog, you are not worth hitting.’ ” Thereafter he and his brother-in-law went to his home about twelve o’clock and there saw his wife, and he expressed to her his surprise at her conduct above referred to, and she replied “Yes, I will go out with him again.” He then said “Good night” and left that same week, and has never lived or cohabited with her since. On cross-examination he was asked where his wife was when he returned to his home on the Monday evening or night mentioned, and his reply was, “Downstairs; still had her coat on. Q. What was she doing ? A. She had a bottle ■of beer in her hand.” In corroboration of Lang’s testimony, Walters, his brother-in-law, when called to the stand by the plaintiff, was asked, “Were you with Lang one night in Alay at the corner of Calvert and Pleasant streets?

A. Well, your honor, I would like to ask a question before the attorney asks me that: Do I have to stand up for all statements that I made prior to — ■—• (The Court) : You don’t have to stand up for anything. (The AATtness) : Then I wish to state that I don’t know anything ⁴⁶⁸ about the cas© because I was drinking at the time. (The-Court) : You are sworn to tell the truth; you answer any questions that are asked you.” He then proceeded with his-testimony and in part corroborated the statements made by Lang, but he was unable to say that the woman he saw with Pohl at his shore place was his sister. He was able to recognize Pohl but not his sister.

The woman, he said, “looked like my sister, built something like my sister.” But when she came out of the house, which was not lighted, and “being all muffled up” he could not see her features. He was able-to recognize Pohl, for when he first came out of the house,, the house was lighted and he was enabled thereby to identify him. Other witnesses testified as to the frequency of Pohl’s visits-to Lang’s house in the absence of the latter. Mrs. Lillian Stickler, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified that she on several occasions, in the year 1926, was-asked by Mrs. Lang to go- with her and Mr. Pohl after cherries or blackberries.

She went with them- four or five times,, carrying her baby with her. On these occasions, Mr. Pohl would carry with him both whiskey and beer, also ice. That after reaching the cherry or blackberry grounds he tvould' spread a blanket on the ground, put his beer and whiskey on. the ice, and, when cool, they would sit there and drink it. On one or more of these occasions- Mr. Pohl said to Mrs. Lang: “There are not many good cherries around here, let Lillian and the baby stay here and we go and get big cherries.” This happened twice that she recalled.

The witness was asked by the court: “Did you see any evidence of affection between, them on any of these blackberry picking trips ?’ A. Yes; kissed her and loved her. (The ’Court) : What do you mean? A. Hugged her and kissed her? (The Court-) :■ In your presence ?

A. Yes.” Pohl, when upon the stand, admitted that he frequently went to Lang’s home and at times Lang would not be at home; on some occasions to carry to them eggs and other things, which he brought from the farm, and on others to do ■ work for them. He also admitted that twice he went with' ⁴⁶⁹ Mrs. Lang and Mrs. Stickler to the country after cherries or blackberries, but both times bo was asked by Mr. Lang to go with them. He admitted carrying “liquors” on those occasions, but he denied that he then, or at any other time, hugged or kissed Mrs. Lang, or that he then, or on any other occasion, had adulterous intercourse with Mrs. Lang. Pohl further testified that on the evening or night when he was said to bo at his shore with Mrs. Lang', he was at the Bohemian Building and Loan Association, of which he is a member, located on Chester Street and Ashland Avenue.

Thereafter he went to Southwest Baltimore to fill a, business engagement and from there returned to his home. After reaching his garage, which is opposite his home, he said: “I put my car in front of the door and opened the door and Mr. Lang and Ms brother-in-law pulled in front of my house and came after me, Lang with his hands in his pocket, and his brother-in-law wTas so drunk he could hardly stand on his feet and lie started to mumble something to me * * * I told them to go home and sleep their drunks off. It was then exactly ten o’clock. I heard the chimes strike” and at ten fifteen o’clock he went to bed.

He further testified that he was not at the shore with Mrs. Lang that evening or night, nor did he on that evening or night see Mrs. Lang, and that he was never at the shore place with Mrs. Lang alone. In support of Pohl’s statement that he was at the building and loan