Goodhues v. Goodhues

• Decision Date: 09 December 1899
• Citation: 44 A. 990,90 Md. 292
• Parties: GOODHUES v. GOODHUES.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

44 A. 990

90 Md. 292

GOODHUES

v. GOODHUES.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 9, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city; Pere L Wickes, Judge.

Bill by Mary Goodhues against Barond J. Goodhues. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C. J., and BOYD, SCHMUCKER, BRISCOE, PEARCE, and FOWLER, JJ.

Peter P. Campbell and C. Dood McFarland, for appellant.

Norbert Blank, for appellee.

FOWLER, J. This is a bill for divorce a mensa et thoro, filed by the wife against the husband. The grounds relied on are cruelty of treatment, desertion, and abandonment. We are all of opinion that the allegations of the bill are not sustained. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff's testimony, taken alone, sustains both of the grounds on which she relies; but, so far from being corroborated, as she must be, to make her testimony the basis of a decree (article 35, § 3, of the Code), she is flatly contradicted on every material point except one. This condition of the proof is apparent upon an examination of the record, and it would serve no good purpose to examine the testimony in detail. The one particular in which she is corroborated is the alleged fact that her husband on one occasion kicked her. Assuming (which we do, however, only for the sake of the argument) that this one act of cruelty is established by satisfactory and legal evidence, it would not be sufficient to justify a dissolution of the marriage tie. "This single act of violence on his part, though it cannot be justified in morals or in law, did not constitute 'cruelty of treatment,' within the meaning of the law, as a cause for divorce a mensa et thoro." Hoshall v. Hoshall, 51 Md. 75.

2. The testimony of the plaintiff in regard to the alleged desertion and abandonment is equally pointed, but it is not only contradicted by the direct denials of the defendant, but all the circumstances of the case show that when he left her he did not do so with any intention of deserting her. On the contrary, we think it is evident from the testimony that he was anxious for her to leave her mother and live with him, and that she refused to accede to his wishes in this respect. In the presence of their pastor, she refused to leave the home of her mother to live with the defendant He left her on the 26th of August, 1898, to go with his father, for a few days, to Atlantic City; and on the 29th, three days thereafter, the bill in this case was filed.

In conclusion, it need only be said that...