Hoover v. Hoover

• Decision Date: 12 February 1947
• Docket Number: 64.
• Citation: 51 A.2d 166,187 Md. 646
• Parties: HOOVER v. HOOVER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

51 A.2d 166

187 Md. 646

HOOVER v. HOOVER.

No. 64.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 12, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cecil County; Floyd J. Kintner, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Elizabeth V. Hoover against William Carroll Hoover, wherein defendant filed a cross-bill. From decree granting plaintiff a divorce a vinculo, defendant appeals.

Decree affirmed.

Louis S. Ashman, of Baltimore (Harry D. Barnes, of Elkton, on the brief), for appellant.

Edward D. E. Rollins, of Elkton, for appellee.

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

MARBURY Chief Judge.

Appellee filed a bill of complaint on February 2, 1946, in the Circuit Court for Cecil County against her husband, the appellant, to whom she was married on November 29, 1924. They have three children, two girls who are married, and a son who is now fifteen years old. The bill asked for a divorce on the ground of adultery alleged to have been committed by the appellant with one Edna Vaughan, since June 1, 1944 to the date of the filing of the bill. The husband answered denying the allegations of the bill and in the answer also claimed a constructive desertion by the wife and asked for a partial divorce. This latter part of the answer was treated as a cross-bill and was answered by the appellee, neither admitting nor denying but calling for full proof. It may be noted here that the desertion consisted of leaving the appellant's room and refusing to do any cooking or laundry for him, although the parties remained in the same house. The facts are admitted, but the wife claims that her actions are justified by the conduct of the appellant. The whole substantive case, therefore, turns upon whether the appellee proved her allegations against the appellant. On this issue the case was heard, testimony was taken, and the Chancellor granted appellee a divorce a vinculo, with the custody of the fifteen-year-old son. From his decree the husband appeals.

The husband is forty-eight, the wife is forty-four, and the alleged co-respondent is twenty-nine. Testimony is that the parties got along fairly well until the depression and then had to accept public assistance for several years. After that, the husband got a job on the State roads and the wife took in a boarder and occasionally got a job in a fireworks plant at Elkton, where they lived. In the early part of 1941 both went to work at the Triumph explosive works near Elkton. The wife worked there until April, 1945, when her youngest daughter married and she had to stay home to do the housework and to get her son to go to school. The first question involving the relations of the husband with other women arose in 1942 when the wife heard rumors that he was intimate with one of the policewomen at the explosive works who lived at Port Deposit. During that entire summer, appellant would take the appellee up to Port Deposit to see this woman and her husband, the husband being home at certain times and at other times not. Finally, appellee told her husband she was not going there any more because she had heard rumors about him and the woman. In the fall of 1944, she found a picture of this woman in his wallet. The woman had moved to Pennsylvania just about that time. The husband admitted to her, and in his testimony, that he had this picture, but denied any improper relations. He did admit he had taken her home one night from the plant.

In 1944, the wife testified a letter came to the house addressed to 'W. O. Hoover.' This letter and the envelope were put in evidence. It was written from Crab Orchard, West Virginia, on March 21, 1944, and it clearly indicated intimacy between the writer and the person to whom it was addressed. The husband showed it to his wife when it came to the house, according to the testimony, but said it did not belong to him and denied knowing anything about it. He kept the letter, however, and it was found by his wife about the time of the separation, and was put in evidence. The husband's testimony is that he kept it because it was no good to him and that he did not know any person by the name of the signer of the letter. He made an effort to testify that there was a William Octor Hoover employed at the plant, but could not produce any proof of this, although his counsel attempted to subpoena records from the plant. No such records, however, were produced, as far as the transcript here shows, nor was any other evidence offered to this effect.

In the latter part of September, 1945, the appellee testified she found a letter in pocket of appellant's shirt, folded with a clip on each end. This letter was admitted in evidence. She said she asked him about it and he said he found it in the personnel building and later, after consideration, he said he found it in the paper room at the Triumph plant. He said he did not know who wrote it. The letter is not signed and bears intrinsic evidence that the writer had intimate relations with the person to whom it was sent. The husband testified that his wife's testimony as to her finding the letter in his pocket was correct, but that he had found it in the paper room at the plant, did not know to whom it was addressed, and he was going to put it back where he had found it, but did not do it. This testimony was attempted to be corroborated by the guard who worked with him at the plant, and who testified that the appellant found a letter similar in appearance to the one offered in evidence, on the 'army side' of the plant. He did not read the letter and did not know anything more about it. This guard also testified that Edna Vaughan worked on the 'navy side' of the plant, which was across the road.

The importance of this letter is that it was claimed to have been written by Edna Vaughan. She denied it. A note was produced which Edna Vaughan had written for a girl who was sent to see her by the appellee, with an autograph book with the purpose in mind of getting a copy of her handwriting. At the trial the appellee's counsel dictated portions of the letter to Edna Vaughan, and her copy of these was also admitted in the evidence. A bank official whose business it was to know handwriting testified as an expert that in his opinion the writing on the disputed note, and the admitted writing of Edna Vaughan on the autographed note, were the same. The Chancellor, in his opinion, stated that he was convinced that Edna Vaughan had written the disputed note.

The appellee testified that she did not know Edna Vaughan, and had no knowledge about her relations with her husband until the 23rd of December, 1945. In July prior to that, she had gone to stay with her sister who was operated on at that time. The understanding with her husband was that she was to stay three weeks, and the last two weeks, which were his vacation, he was to join her. He did not do so until two days before they came home. After that time, his wife saw a difference in him and suspected he was going to see someone but did not know where. One day she followed him downtown in the morning and it looked like he went in 112 Bow Street, which was where Edna Vaughan lived. When she taxed him with that, he said he went to a barber shop which was under the same roof. On December 23, 1945, the appellee received a visit from Clinton Vaughan, the estranged husband of Edna Vaughan, who was in the army. When the appellant came home, after this conversation, his wife told him that Vaughan had told her that the appellant had been visiting Vaughan's wife for over a year, that Vaughan had seen him in the house and had asked him to leave, that appellant had refused, and that Vaughan had gone to get a town officer. According to appellee's testimony, her husband admitted that he had been going there for about a year. When she asked him what he was going to do about it, he said he would settle it after Christmas. This testimony was corroborated by the married daughter of the parties who was living at home. Appellant admitted saying that he would settle the matter after Christmas. The appellee said that the following morning at breakfast, she told her husband she could not go along if he was going to see Edna Vaughan, and he again said he would settle it after Christmas. Appellee testified she went down to see Edna Vaughan in the afternoon at the 5 and 10 cent store where she was then employed. There was no conversation between husband and wife on Christmas Day about the matter, but on the following evening, when the husband came home about 9 or 10 o'clock, the wife said she asked him again what he was going to do about it. She testified he then said he knew he had done her wrong and that things would never be the same between them. She said she was willing to go on if he was. She asked him then if he loved Edna...