Crane v. Crane
| Decision Date | 04 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 15. |
| Citation | 97 A. 535,128 Md. 214 |
| Parties | CRANE v. CRANE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; Allan McLane, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Suit by J. Edward Crane against Ruth Alma Crane. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and from an order for payment of alimony, costs, and counsel fees, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed on both appeals.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
T Scott Offutt, of Towson (Harry B. Wolf, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant. Alfred S. Niles, of Baltimore, and David G. McIntosh, of Towson (Richard Bernard, of Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.
J Edward Crane, the appellee, on the 30th day of January, 1915, filed a bill in the circuit court for Baltimore county, in equity, against Ruth Alma Crane, his wife, the appellant, for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, on the ground of adultery, and for the care and custody of the two infant children. By the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the bill it is averred: Third, that ever since the marriage the plaintiff has always been a kind, faithful, and affectionate husband, and his conduct above reproach; fourth, that Ruth Alma Crane, his wife, the defendant, has at divers times between January 1, 1914 and the filing of this bill, committed adultery with one Edgar H. Paxson, Jr., and with divers other men whose names are to the plaintiff unknown; and, fifth, that the plaintiff has not lived or cohabited with his wife since he has discovered the adulteries.
On the 8th of February, 1915, the defendant answered the bill, denying the material allegations set out therein, and charging that the averments in paragraph 4 of the bill were false and untrue, because her conduct towards her husband had always been kind, chaste, and above reproach. The case was heard upon bill, answer, and proof, and from a decree dated the 9th of June, 1915, granting an absolute divorce to the husband, and the custody of the minor children, the wife has appealed. Subsequently, on the 29th of October, 1915, the husband, J. Edward Crane, entered an appeal from the order of court, dated October 1, 1915, directing the payment of certain counsel fees by the husband, and the cost of the preparation of the record, on the wife's appeal, to this court, and alimony to the wife during the continuance of this litigation.
The controlling question on the first appeal is whether the testimony, as disclosed by the record, sustains and supports the charge of adultery, as alleged in the plaintiff's bill. The rules of law to be applied in determining cases of this character have been repeatedly announced by the decisions of this court and can admit of no controversy. They will be found clearly stated and adopted in a number of well-considered cases. Kremelberg v. Kremelberg, 52 Md. 553; Shufeldt v. Shufeldt, 86 Md. 529, 39 A. 416; Rasch v. Rasch, 105 Md. 504, 66 A. 499; Robins v. Robins, 121 Md. 695, 89 A. 1135; Marshall v. Marshall, 122 Md. 694, 91 A. 1067; Thiess v. Thiess, 124 Md. 296, 92 A. 922.
The proof in the case at bar is voluminous, and, as usual in such cases, a large part of it is both contradictory and conflicting; but we are compelled to hold, after a careful and deliberate consideration of all the testimony in the record before us, that the charge of adultery against the wife has been satisfactorily and conclusively established, and the husband is entitled to the relief sought by the bill. It appears that the parties to the controversy were married on December 19, 1909, in Wilmington, Del., and lived together as husband and wife, until on or about the 19th of December, 1914. The issue of the marriage are two children, Francis Earl, age three years, and Joseph Edward, age four years, both of whom are now living.
The bill charges adulterous intercourse between the defendant and the corespondent, Edgar H. Paxson, Jr., between the 1st day of January, 1914, and the filing of the bill. The basis of the charge and the guilt of the defendant rests upon the established fact that she left Baltimore on December 10, 1914, in company with the corespondent, Edgar H. Paxson, Jr., on the steamer Middlesex running from Baltimore to Fredericksburg, Va., occupying the same stateroom No. 2, known as the "bridal chamber," from Thursday until Saturday, when they left the boat, and registered at the Princess Ann Hotel as E. H. Hamilton and wife, Leesburg, Va., as appears from the hotel register of Saturday, December 12, 1914. They were assigned to the same bedroom in the hotel, and passed as man and wife, both on the steamer and while at the hotel.
If the testimony presented upon the part of the appellee supports the facts, as thus stated, it is impossible to reconcile it with the innocence of the defendant, and there can be no question as to the correctness of the conclusion reached by the court below as to her guilt. It will be seen that the identification of the wife and Paxson, as the persons who occupied the stateroom on the Steamer for two days and nights under the names of E. H. Hamilton and wife, is positive and certain. The stewardess and the waiter, Bundy, employed on the steamer, identified Mrs. Crane, at her house, and in the courtroom, during the trial, as the woman who occupied the stateroom with the man who was registered on the boat as E. H. Hamilton and wife.
Mr. Reamy, the manager of the hotel in Fredericksburg, is positive and certain that the picture of Mrs. Crane is the picture of the woman who, on December 12th, registered at the hotel as the wife of E. H. Hamilton, and they were assigned to room No. 307 of the hotel. The witness Ashby, the clerk at the hotel, testified that he is absolutely certain that the pictures of Mrs. Crane and Paxson are the pictures of the persons who registered at the hotel on December 12, 1914, as E. H. Hamilton and wife, and they went to their room as soon as he registered. He talked with Hamilton and they were supposed to be a bridal couple. The signature of Paxson to a lease offered in evidence is not disputed, and the handwriting thereon is the same as that on the registry of the steamboat company and the hotel register at Fredericksburg.
The identification of the defendant and Paxson as the persons who were on the steamer and at the hotel in Fredericksburg, Va on the occasions named, is not only conclusively established by the testimony of disinterested witnesses, who testified in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial