Garrett v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 12 June 1946
• Docket Number: 140.
• Citation: 47 A.2d 609,186 Md. 697
• Parties: GARRETT v. GARRETT.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

47 A.2d 609

186 Md. 697

GARRETT v. GARRETT.

No. 140.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 12, 1946

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Joseph Sherbow, Judge.

'Not to be reported in State Reports'.

Suit for divorce by Margaret M. Garrett against Harold B. Garrett.From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, the complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Abram C. Joseph, of Baltimore (Daniel C. Joseph, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

William Pepper Constable and John D. Alexander, both of Baltimore (Constable & Alexander, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J. and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, and HENDERSON JJ.

GRASON Judge.

Margaret M. Garrett(appellant) married Harold B. Garrett(appellee) at Elkton, Maryland, on the 14th day of March, 1927, and they lived together continuously at that place until August 3 1945.Appellee was born and raised at Elkton and has lived there all his life.No children were born as a result of the marriage.It was appellee's first venture in matrimony.The appellant was married before, and was divorced from her first husband.Shortly after August 3, 1945, appellant went to Baltimore City, and on the 27th day of August, 1945 instituted a divorce proceeding in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.The case was tried in that Court, and from a decree entered by the chancellor, refusing the relief prayed and dismissing the bill of complaint, the case comes here on appeal.

In the fourth paragraph of the bill it is alleged: 'That although the conduct of your Oratrix toward the said Respondent has always been that of a good, kind, affectionate and chaste wife, the Respondent has treated your Oratrix with extreme cruelty, harshness and brutality, inflicting bodily injuries upon her, so that it is impossible for her to live with him any longer; that she was forced to separate from him on the 3rd day of August, 1945.'These allegations, as well as the allegations of the financial worth of appellee set out in the sixth paragraph of the bill, are denied in the answer filed by appellee.All other averments in the bill are admitted.

The bill prays: (a) For a divorce a mensa et thoro; (b) for alimony, pendente lite and permanent; (c) for costs and counsel fee, and (d) for general relief.

When these parties married, appellee was employed by the Dupont Company, at a salary of $350 a month.He has been with that company ever since, and through the years has advanced to the position of Division Purchasing Agent and is making, at this time, between $22,000 and $23,000 a year.They lived in reasonable comfort.In the last few years he says he gave his wife $200 a month (she says $170) to run the house.He did not eat breakfast or lunch at home, and only ate his dinner at home upon arriving from Wilmington after work.In addition he paid all expenses of the house, and gave his wife money for clothes.She says the amount given her was not sufficient to buy food, pay a maid, and to buy her clothes, and she was required to open and conduct a beauty parlor, to make ends meet.He says she did not like domestic duties and, at her request, he gave her $150 to open the beauty parlor, which she conducted for a time, abandoned it, and then again opened a beauty parlor, which she conducted until about two years before the final separation.The husband frequently took his wife on trips.They went to Florida three times, to Nassau twice, Havana, Cuba, and to New York many times.In 1939he built a nice home in Elkton, which, together with the furniture, cost $25,000.He had title to this property put in the name of himself and his wife, as tenants by the entireties.An effort was made at the trial to make it appear that appellee became cold and distant to his wife, that he had outgrown her socially, and he wanted to be rid of her.This appears chiefly from testimony of relatives of appellant.A number of witnesses testified that he treated his wife with consideration and courtesy, and this, too, though the conduct of appellant was at least trying.Appellee did not like social life and the record fails to establish that he is or ever was a social climber.He and his wife entertained friends at home, and their friends entertained them.For over eighteen years these parties lived together in Elkton in a degree of ease, comfort, and contentment, with the exception of certain occasions hereafter referred to.The husband seems to be a hard-working and successful man, possessed of a quiet and even disposition, except when unduly harassed by his wife's conduct, and held in respect in his community.The wife is possessed of a quick and fiery temper, which she displayed to her employees, her friends, and to her husband.She at times drank too much, and intoxicants seem to have caused her to easily exhibit her temper.On these occasions she would leave the home and drive her car to Wilmington, Delaware, to a relative, and relate to them the brutality of her husband.Once she drove to friends in Washington, D. C., and again went to Long Island and stayed with friends for a period of two weeks or more.On all of these occasions, except the last, she returned to her husband and resumed marital relations.She indulged in profanity to her employees, her friends and to her husband.There is evidence in the caseshe spoke to an employee of and concerning her husband in profane terms.Although appellant testifies to several occasions when her husband brutally beat her, it is somewhat strange that during all the long eighteen years they lived together no one ever saw the husband hit the wife.She refers to six specific occasions when she was brutally beaten by her husband, occurring in 1930, 1931, 1933, 1939, 1943 and 1945 respectively.The testimony of appellant, as to the first three occasions, is not only vague as to time and place, but is also without corroboration.The 1939 incident is not impressive.His account of the occasion is that when he arrived home from work he found that his wife had been drinking.She refused to tell him where she had been.There was no dinner prepared.She wanted the keys to the automobile, which were in his coat which he had removed and hung up.She took the keys from his coat and he took them away from her.In the struggle she tried to bite his hand to make him let go of the keys.She called a policeman, who came, accompanied by his niece who at the time worked for appellant.The niece said the appellant had a red eye and that it was black the next day.The officer did not see that the appellant's eye was red.Appellant made no complaint to the officer, but walked into the kitchen.The officer apologized and left.One thing this incident discloses is that she was not afraid of her husband that evening, notwithstanding, according to her, it was her fourth beating.Her account of the occasion is so improbable that we cannot accept it.She says appellee walked in the kitchen where she was preparing waffles, 'got mad and hit me right out of a clear sky.'She doesn't know what she said to him or what he got mad about.Of this she has no recollection.The husband denies he hit his wife, and it may be that in the struggle of the husband with his intoxicated wife to prevent her from taking the automobile keys, her eye was bruised.We cannot say from this testimony that the husband hit her.

In 1943 the Garretts had a cottage down on the river.They, together with a Mrs. Hathaway (now Mrs. Bunting), her young son, and the Garrett's colored maid, went down to the shore to spend the week-end.Appellee had retired for the night when he heard a commotion.He got up and came out where the women were and found that they were engaged in a fight.Mrs Bunting says appellant was intoxicated and insulted her and she struck her in the face and blacked her eye.This conduct broke up the week-end party and appellee took his wife home that night.The next afternoon appellee brought Mrs. Bunting and her son to Elkton.Mrs. Bunting and appellant had been friends for years and appellee asked her to go to his home and try to quiet his wife, and she did go to see appellant and appellant did not go to Wilmington.A brother of the appellant was visiting in Elkton at the time.He says the appellee came to him the morning after this occasion and told him he blacked appellant's eye.It is highly improbable that a husband would go to the brother of his wife and tell him he blacked his wife's eye.The husband denies this and denies that he hit his wife on this occasion.He says his wife was struck by Mrs. Bunting, and Mrs. Bunting says that she did hit appellant on that occasion.In all of these instances the burden of proof was on appellant to...