Mulhall v. Mulhall

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case contains appeals from two orders passed by the Circuit Court of Baltimore Citv; the first allowing to the appellee alimony pendente lite and counsel fees, in the lower Court, and the other allowing counsel fees to the appellee, upon the appeal, by the appellant, to this Court from the first order. The appellee filed on July 2nd, 1912, a bill praying for a divorce, a mensa et thoro, from the appellant, on the ground of abandonment and desertion, and asking for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees for the prosecution of her suit, after reciting that she was wholly without funds. The bill recites, so far as is necessary for a decision of these appeals, that by reason of her husband’s wilful refusal to support her, and their five children, she was compelled to return to her father’s home in Cleveland, Ohio, in the year 1901, where she has resided ever since, living upon the bounty of her father and other relatives; with the exception of that from July, 1906, to January, 1911, her husband contributed fifty dollars a month, and from January, 1911, to August, 1911, thirty dollars a month, to their support, but that since said last date he has contributed nothing.

That from September, 1901, to the beginning of the year 1912 the defendant was making a salary of from $3,500 to $4,000. That for the pást eight years the defendant has maintained a home and lived in the City of Baltimore, in ²⁴ adultery with a woman known by the name of Lula K. Mulhall, and who passes as the wife of the defendant. That said woman is now being kept in a sanatarium, by the defendant, at an expense of one hundred dollars per month. That the defendant has purchased six, or more, tracts of real estate in Baltimore, the title to which has been taken by the defendant in the joint names of himself and Lula K. Mulhall, “his wife,” as tenants by the entireties.

That all of sáid property was unencumbered. On the same day the Court passed an order nisi; ordering the defendant to pay the appellee one hundred dollars a month alimony pendente lite and one hundred and fifty dollars for counsel fees, unless cause to the contrary was shown on or before July 20th, 1912, provided a copy of bill and order was served upon defendant before July 10th, 1912. ' On July 17th, 1912, the defendant filed an answer, among other things denying the charge of abandonment and desertion; alleging that from 1901 to 1904 he made no money, but from 1904 to October, 1911, he received a salary of forty dollars a week, which was later increased to fifty, sixty and finally to seventy-five dollars per week, until he lost his position. He neither admits nor denies, that he has 'maintained a house in Baltimore in which he has installed Lula K. Mulhall as his wife, nor that he is keeping her at an asylum at an expense to him, of one hundred dollars per month. He admits that certain property in Baltimore' City has been transferred to “Martin M. Mnlhall and Lula K. Mulhall, his wife, the object and intent of which will hereafter be disclosed unto your Honor at the proper time.” -'That a portion-of said property is encumbered by mortgage. ' On the same day he also filed a cross-bill, praying for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of desertion.

" • On July 26th, 1912, the Court, after consideration of the bill-of complaint, answer and cross-bill, passed an order, directing that the defendant pay the appellee forty dollars a ²⁵ month, -for alimony pendente lite, and one hundred and fifty dollars for counsel fee. From this order the first appeal was taken July 31st, 1912. On August 8th, 1912, the appellee filed a petition setting out that an appeal had been taken from the order granting her alimony and counsel fees, and alleging that she was wholly without funds to employ counsel to defend her suit in the Court of Appeals, and that she is dependent, for the necessities of life, upon her father and brothers and the earnings of three of her children. And again further sets out that, while she is in destitute circumstances, her husband is the owner of a large number of valuable pieces of property situate in Baltimore and is fully able to bear the expense of the employment of counsel by the appellee.

Upon this petition an order nisi was passed, ordering the defendant to show cause, on or before August 23rd, 1912, why he should not pay the appellee one hundred and fifty dollars for counsel fee. On August 21st, 1912, the defendant filed his answer to the petition. He denied that the appellee was wholly without funds to employ counsel or that she was in destitute circumstances: And alleged