O'Neil v. O'Neil

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Oourt. This is a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery in which Patrick O’Neil, the appellant, is the plaintiff, and Katherine A. O’Neil the defendant. The appeal in No. 18 is from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint; and in No. 40 from an order directing plaintiff to pay to dedendant’s counsel of record a fee of $250. The defendant denies the charges and in addition avers that plaintiff visited her home subsequent to the filing of the' bill and resumed marital relations.

The plaintiff for proof of adultery relies upon the testimony of two witnesses; one the alleged paramour, and the other an intimate friend of the chief witness. As to both the alleged offense and, if proved, its condonation, the result depends entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses of the respective parties. The chancellor dismissed the bill of complaint. He apparently was not impressed with the character of plaintiff’s two- main witnesses.

These witnesses evidently were trying to- do all that was expected of them. The alleged paramour undertook to- prove the existence of criminal relations between himself and the defendant extending over a period of three years, during most of which time he knew she was the wife of the plaintiff. Eo-r much of this time, he said, the carnal acts occurred regularly several times a week, and they continued down to March, 1930. So far as appears there was no- break in his friendly relations with the defendant.

One would ■suppose that an otherwise decent man, if the relations he swore to really existed, would expose the conduct of the ²⁹⁵ woman most unwillingly and only under compulsion. Yet this man was a most cheerful witness, and was even willing to