Ingram v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 21 November 1938 |
| Citation | 199 S.E. 515 |
| Parties | INGRAM. v. INGRAM. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hustings Court, Part 2, of Richmond; Ernest H. Wells, Judge.
Petition by Arthur A. Ingram against Bessie C. Ingram to be relieved from payment of further alimony on ground that defendant had committed adultery. From a decree granting the relief, defendant appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, EGGLESTON, and SPRATLEY, JJ.
Thomas I. Talley, of Richmond, for appellant.
Arthur A. Ingram, in pro. per.
On February 13, 1932, Bessie C. Ingram was granted a divorce from Arthur A. Ingram, with alimony. By a decree entered about three years later the allowance of alimony was slightly increased and fixed at $22.50 per month.
On March 5, 1936, Arthur A. Ingram, who had in the meantime remarried, filed a petition alleging that "recently" he had learned that his former wife had "committed adultery within recent years at various and sundry times and places with one Percy C. Wooters, " and praying that on that account he be relieved from the payment of further alimony to her.
The husband took the depositions of himself and Wooters, the alleged paramour, in support of the allegations of the petition. Mrs. Ingram took the depositions of several witnesses, including herself, in refutation of the charges. Upon the reading of this evidence the lower court entered a decree relieving the husband from the payment of further alimony, and from this decree the present appeal has been taken.
Ingram's testimony contains no direct proof of his former wife's misconduct. The only evidence of the alleged adultery of Mrs. Ingram comes from the lips of her self-proclaimed paramour, Wooters. The question we are to decide is whether this uncorroborated story is sufficient to sustain the allegations of the petition.
There are decisions to the effect that one should not as a matter of law be found guilty of adultery on the uncorroborated testimony of a paramour. See Ann.Cas. 1913A, p. 1241, note.
However, there seems to be no conclusive reason why adultery may not be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of a paramour, provided he or she is a credible witness and the story worthy of belief. But the testimony of such particeps criminis should be received and acted upon with great caution.1
This is the conclusion reached in Letts v. Letts, 79 N.J.Eq. 630, 639, 82 A. 845, Ann. Cas.l913A, 1236, the leading case on the subject. See, also, Evans v. Evans, 123 Okl. 9, 252 P. 837; 9 R.C.L, p. 332, § 111; 19 C.J, p. 141, § 364.
As was said in Wesley v. Wesley, 181 Ky. 135, 204 S.W. 165, 169, "Witnesses who testify to their own shame and degradation, and especially those witnesses who testify to unchaste acts with females, have never been favorites of the courts of justice." In that State a charge of adultery cannot be sustained by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. Ky. Stats. § 2119.
When the uncorroborated testimony of Wooters is weighed in the light of these principles, in our opinion it is entirely in-sufficient to sustain the allegations of the petition.
Wooters testified that he had been a friend of Mr. and Mrs. Ingram for about sixteen years; that his illicit relations with Mrs. Ingram began in October, 1928 (nearly four years before the divorce was granted), and continued until the summer of 1935; that during these years he visited Mrs. Ingram almost daily either at her home or where she worked, and frequently took her downtown in his automobile; that during this time he had committed adultery with her on "numerous occasions, " or "whenever the occasion presented itself." And all the while, he said, he was married and living with his wife. It further appears that at the time he gave his deposition he was not employed, but was being supported by his wife, to whom,...
To continue reading
Request your trial