Russell v. Russell

PER Curiam. The only question presented here is whether the evidence produced by appellee is sufficient to support the decree for permanent alimony passed by the chancellor. The parties were married in 1936 and are childless. For many years, and during these proceedings, they have lived in a home owned by them in Baltimore City.

Until recent years their marital career was uneventful. However, in 1957 the wife filed suit for divorce a mensa et thoro for reasons not made clear in the record. Later in the same year the parties became reconciled and that suit was abandoned. In July, 1959, the wife filed the instant action for permanent alimony, alleging constructive desertion and a course of conduct on the part of the husband which endangered her safety and health to such a degree as to result in nervous and physical impairment of her well-being.

She also complained of lack of sufficient support. The husband answered, denying all material charges and accusing the wife of refusal to cohabit, persistent refusal to perform her household duties, and refusal to account for the excess of his weekly pay (all of which he gave her until 1956) over necessary expenses. In her testimony, the wife’s principal complaint was that her husband frequently drank beer to excess, and that such overindulgence caused him to lose control of his functions of elimination. This incontinence, she said, impelled her to leave their joint bedroom and sleep in the dining room.

When pressed by the chancellor for details of such occasions, the wife described only one incident which, she indicated, occurred after the filing of the bill of complaint. She also charged her husband with being rough and abusive (without