Sharp v. Sharp

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a bill in equity filed by the wife, Emma O. Sharp, against her husband, John N. Sharp, to procure a divorce a mensa et thoro, on the ground of alleged cruelty of treatment and excessively vicious conduct. The defendant answered the bill of complaint and neither admitted nor denied its allegations, but asked for full proof thereof.. The parties were married on the 29th of January, 1902, in the city of Baltimore, and had two children.

They lived together at various places until April 13th, 1904, when they separated and she went to the home of her parents, where she has since resided. The bill was filed on the 14th of April, 1904, and the principal question for our consideration, is one of fact, that is, does the proof disclosed by the record sustain ⁵⁸² the charge of such cruel treatment or excessively vicious conduct on the part of the husband within the meaning of sec. 37, Art. 16, of the Code of Public General Laws, as to entitle the wife, to a divorce. The case was heard on bill, answer and proof, in the Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, the wife was denied the relief sought and the bill was dismissed. We cannot concur in the conclusion reached by the Court below.

We are of the opinion, after a careful review of the whole testimony, that the conclusion there announced is against the decided weight of the testimony, and the decree of the Court below must be reversed. We will now state the reasons which require us to make this decision. In the case of Hawkins v. Hawkins, 65 Md. 104 , this Court said, in stating what state of facts will authorize the granting of a divorce a mensa et thoro, for cruelty of treatment and excessively vicious conduct. “The rule to be gáthered from all the authorities, that furnish safe guides upon this delicate subject, is, that the ground of complaint must be grave and weighty, showing to the entire satisfaction of the Court, the existence of such state of things as render it impossible that the duties of the married life can be discharged. Where the .complaint is of cruel treatment, the mere austerity of temper, petulance of manner, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention, even occasional sallies of passion, if they do not threaten bodily harm, do not constitute such cruelty of treatment as to warrant the Court in pronouncing a degree of separation.

But a series of acts of personal violence, or a menace to the safety of life, limb or health, or any determined threats of serious bodily hurt, have always been held sufficient ground for a separation by the common law, and that is the law to which we must appeal upon this subject.” In the case now under consideration, the evidence is clear and convincing as to the charge of cruelty of treatment and excessively vicious conduct on the part of the husband on ⁵⁸³ various occasions, to entitle the wife to a decree of separation. The wife testified that at various times her husband struck her, was excessively cruel to her, and that his cruel treatment consisted of repeated blows, threats to kill and shoot her, and other vicious conduct. On one occasion he struck her in the back with his fist. At another time, he pointed a loaded pistol and threatened to shoot her; he threw her when in a delicate condition over a chair, and she fell to the floor.

She further testified, that he repeatedly threatened to kill her, and his threats became so frequent, she believed he would do so and also kill her child; that he struck her and the child on the night of the 12th of April and repeatedly struck her when in bed, and that he repeated the blows on the morning of the 13th of April. She also testified that she had often forgiven him for his treatment, but after the night of the 12th of April and the following morning she felt that her safety and that of her child required, she should leave him, and seek protection in the home of her parents. The testimony of the wife, as above stated, is fully corroborated by other witnesses produced on the part of the appellant, and by the admissions of the husband himself. Mrs. Dora Hugo testified, that Mr. Sharp