Mann v. Mann, 18865

• Decision Date: 30 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 18865,18865
• Citation: 252 S.C. 160,165 S.E.2d 632
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Carol Jones MANN, Respondent, v. Franklin M. MANN, Sr., Appellant.

Page 632

165 S.E.2d 632

252 S.C. 160

Carol Jones MANN, Respondent, v. Franklin M. MANN, Sr., Appellant.

No. 18865.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 30, 1969.

Thomas W. Whiteside, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Kale R. Alexander, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Carol Jones Mann, the respondent herein, and Franklin M. Mann, Sr., the appellant herein, were married on March 3, 1963. One child was born of this marriage and he was four years of age on December 8, 1968.

The parties separated on April 11, 1967, and thereafter, the respondent instituted an action for a divorce A mensa et thoro, and allied relief, in which she alleged, Inter alia, abusive treatment of her by the husband. The husband, by way of cross action, sought a divorce A vinculo matrimonii from his wife on the ground of adultery. Section 20--101(1) of the Code. Both parties ask custody of the minor child.

The case was referred to the Master in Equity for Spartanburg County and after hearing the testimony he filed his report in which he found that the husband was entitled to a divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery and that he was entitled to the custody of the minor child. The wife appealed from the aforesaid Master's report to the Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Spartanburg County. This court sustained the report of the Master. In the decree, the Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court awarded a divorce to the husband on the ground of adultery and granted custody of the minor child to the husband, with visitation privileges to the wife. The wife, upon exceptions, appealed to the Circuit Court of Spartanburg County and such appeal came on to be heard by The Honorable Wade S. Weatherford, Jr., Resident Judge. Thereafter, on September 25, 1968, he issued an order reversing the decree of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, holding that the appellant had failed to prove by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the respondent was guilty of adultery. He further held that the respondent was entitled to the permanent custody of the infant child of the marriage. The case was remanded to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the purpose of determining reasonable visitation rights for the appellant with his infant son, and to fix a proper amount for the support of the wife and the child, and also to determine what fees should be allowed to counsel for the respondent. It is from this decree that this appeal is prosecuted....