Stevens v. Stevens

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee filed her bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, against the appellant for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of adultery, praying custody of their two infant children and alimony and counsel fees. The appellant answered, filed a cross-bill on the ground of adultery, and prayed custody of the children. Testimony was taken before one of the Standing Examiners and submitted to the court for opinion and decree.

Thus, the court did not see the witnesses, although the parties had been before him on more than one occasion in preliminary proceedings. On December 14, 1945, after hearing argument, the court granted an absolute divorce to the appellee on the ground of adultery, dismissed the cross-bill, ⁶¹⁴ awarded custody of the children to the appellee and fixed permanent alimony at $175 per month. The first point raised by the appellant is an alleged failure to comply with Rule 36, of the General Equity Rules, in that the appellee was permitted to testify by reading from a prepared statement. But the transcript shows that, upon objection, the witness denied “reading from notes” and said: “I only referred to it as to time.” We also find in the transcript a stipulation filed December 14, 1945, “between counsel for the plaintiff and defendant in this cause, that the various objections taken by each side in the course of the testimony in this cause will not be pressed and that the Court may consider the testimony without regard to said objections.” Thus, even if the objection were well taken, it was clearly waived.

The main point pressed upon appeal is- the lack of credible and substantial evidence to support the finding of adultery by the husband. A considerable part of the testimony produced on behalf of the appellee was from private investigators, who shadowed the appellant on four occasions, when he was with the alleged paramour. This Court has frequently had occasion to state that the testimony of investigators, who are interested witnesses, must be scrutinized with care. See Bailey v. Bailey, 186 Md. 76 , 46 A. 2d 275, 279 , and cases there cited.

But it is a singular fact that in the instant case neither the appellant nor the co-respondent denied the testimony of the investigators; the only denial was as to what inferences should be drawn from that testimony. At the time of the hearing the appellant was 36 years old, the appellee 30. They were married March 31, 1936. One child was born January 17, 1937, the other March 5, 1941, so that their ages were approximately 8 and 4.

The appellant was employed by the Foreign Economic Administration, an agency of the Federal Government, as Deputy Director of Field Operations Staff, with a base pay of $6,500 a year. He had a good opinion of his services, for he characterized his superior officer as ⁶¹⁵ “nominal head. I actually supervise and run the operations.” The co-respondent was “Administrative Assistant” in that Department. She was a married woman, 25 years of age, separated and living apart from her husband.

When the appellant first asked her out to dinner, he testified, he told her “there was absolutely nothing sexual involved and I wanted it clearly understood.” But on January 24, 1945, the investigators saw the appellant and the co-respondent in his car, parked in a closed gas station, hugging and kissing. They had dinner at a restaurant; later they were seen to enter her apartment. When the investigators left a half hour later, the appellant was still there. Neither the appellant nor the co-respondent denied these statements, except that they denied that he remained in the apartment more than a few minutes.

They both state that the co-respondent’s husband came to the apartment as Stevens was leaving. The husband testified that he called upon his wife one evening in January, and found Stevens there; he could not fix the date, or the time Stevens had been there before he arrived. On January 31, 1945, Stevens took the co-respondent to a theatre. Afterwards they parked, and hugging and kissing ensued.

The investigator lost the car when they drove off, and went immediately to her apartment. They had not returned an hour later. On February 5, 1945, Stevens and the co-respondent were again seen together in his parked car, hugging and kissing. On February 13, 1945, the same performance was repeated.

This time the appellee accompanied the investigators and they saw the appellant and the co-respondent hugging and kissing, lost the car, and watched the apartment until 3 A. M. but the parties did not return. The apartment was dark and there was no response when they knocked at the door. When the appellee returned home at 3:30 A. M. her husband was there, “very agitated and nervous.” She went downstairs and slept with her mother. On the following morning she examined the appellant’s car, ⁶¹⁶ “which he left at home