Stevens v. Stevens

Bailey, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John Eddy Stevens and Daisy E. Stevens were-married on August 29,1918. Two children, a son and a daughter, were born of this marriage. They lived at several places in Annapolis and in Anne Arundel County but, for a number of years prior to their separation on September 3, 1940, their home was on Dean Street in Annapolis.

On September 3, 1940, while Mrs. Stevens was in Baltimore for the day, Mr. Stevens took his clothes and left his home. He returned later for his personal effects, but has never returned to resume marital relations with his wife, although she has requested him to do so. A few days later Mrs. Stevens instituted suit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for a divorce a mensa et thoro on the ground of desertion, in which suit an award of alimony pendente lite in the amount of §16 per week was made. No further action has been taken in that suit.

On March 5, 1943, Mr. Stevens instituted suit in the same Court for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of abandonment. To the bill of complaint in this case, Mrs. Stevens filed her answer denying the abandonment and alleging that Mr. Stevens had abandoned her and that he was guilty of adultery. The answer was filed on March 17, and on the same day Mrs. Stevens filed in said suit a cross-bill of complaint asking for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the grounds of abandonment and desertion, and of adultery, for permanent alimony and for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Mr. Stevens answered the cross-bill, denying the abandonment and desertion, and the adultery.

Testimony was taken before an Examiner. The Chancellor, by his decree, dismissed the original bill filed by Mr. ⁶⁰¹ Stevens, granted Mrs. Stevens a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and ordered Mr. Stevens to pay permanent alimony in the amount of $16 per week, counsel fees to her solicitor and the costs of suit. It is from this decree that the present appeal is taken. The record is a voluminous one, but much of the testimony is irrelevant and immaterial.

Again, much of it relates to the alleged adultery of the husband, and, as the decree a vinculo matrimonii is based on the husband’s desertion and not on his adultery, it is unnecessary for us to enter into a detailed discussion of that portion of the testimony pertaining to the adultery. It is sufficient for us to state that we agree with the Chancellor’s conclusion that the wife did not meet the burden imposed upon her to prove her husband’s adultery. Steinla v. Steinla, 178 Md. 367 , 13 A 2d 534; Stern v. Stern, 173 Md. 689 , 195 A. 565 ; Sterling v. Sterling, 145 Md. 631 , 125 A. 809 . As it is undisputed that the husband left the wife, it is for this Court to decide whether he was justified in so doing by reason of the conduct of the wife.

This must be determined from all the testimony. It is a clearly defined issue of fact to be determined from the mass of conflicting evidence in the case and we feel that this Court is under no obligation to do more than state its conclusion, with the reasons therefor, on this factual issue. Silverberg v. Silverberg, 148 Md. 682 , 130 A. 325 ; Freeny v. Freeny, 80 Md. 406, 408 , 31 A. 304 ; Stirn v. Stirn, 183 Md. 36 A. 2d 695. The testimony in this case satisfactorily established, with the necessary corroboration, that the husband had no justification for deserting his wife.

His conduct over a long period of time, in absenting himself from the home three or four evenings every week until as late as 2 o’clock A. M.,