Dougherty v. Dougherty
Decision Date | 12 January 1950 |
Citation | 166 Pa.Super. 219,70 A.2d 411 |
Parties | DOUGHERTY v. DOUGHERTY. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Submitted November 21, 1949.
Appeal, No. 301, Oct. T., 1949, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County, Oct. T., 1947, No. 74, in case of Thomas Dougherty v. Marguerite Dougherty.
Divorce proceeding.
Report of master filed recommending decree of divorce on the ground of desertion; exceptions to master's report dismissed and decree of divorce entered, opinion by McCready, P. J Respondent appealed.
Irving W. Coleman, Jerome W. Burkepile, Jr. and Albert H Heimbach, for appellant, submitted a brief.
Frank X. York, for appellee, submitted a brief.
OPINION
In this action brought by a husband for a divorce on the ground of desertion, the master who heard the case recommended that the divorce be granted. Exceptions to his report were dismissed and a decree in divorce entered by the court below, and the wife took this appeal.
The libel was filed on September 24, 1947. The parties were married on April 8, 1917 and resided together until January 11, 1932, when the wife left the common abode, taking with her the five children born to the couple. It is admitted that she has not returned to the residence of her husband, that she has never offered to return to it or to resume marital relations and that she has made no overtures for reconciliation.
Rebar v. Rebar, 165 Pa.Super. 341, 344, 67 A.2d 598, 599.
There having been admittedly a separation for the required statutory period, the burden was on the respondent to prove consent or a reasonable cause for her withdrawing from the matrimonial domicile. Mertz v. Mertz, 119 Pa.Super. 538, 180 A. 708. She does not contend that the separation was consentable but contends that she had reasonable cause for leaving the common habitation. The "reasonable cause" which is justification for husband or wife in quitting and abandoning the other, is that and only that which would entitle the separating party to a divorce. Thomas v. Thomas, 133 Pa.Super. 12, 14, 1 A.2d 686; Darrall v. Darrall, 164 Pa.Super. 113, 63 A.2d 693; Boughter v. Boughter, 164 Pa.Super. 574, 67 A.2d 812.
As the basis for her leaving the home, the respondent testified that the libellant was unduly friendly with a Mrs. Fronheiser, that he had an "ungovernable temper, he didn't know how to correct the children, he used every method but the right method"; that he called her and the children names, and finally that she left on January 11, 1932 because there was no fuel or food in the house. The respondent's testimony is so exaggerated that it would not be credible even if it were undenied.
She testified as follows: . ...
To continue reading
Request your trial