Ingram v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 21 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1967. |
| Citation | 171 Va. 399 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | BESSIE C. INGRAM v. ARTHUR A. INGRAM. |
1. DIVORCE — Adultery — Evidence — Uncorroborated Testimony of Paramour. — While 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, the testimony of such particeps criminis should be received and acted upon with great caution.
2. ALIMONY — Forfeiture for Subsequent Adultery — Incredible Testimony of Alleged Paramour — Case at Bar. — In the instant case a divorced husband prayed to be relieved from the payment of further alimony on the ground that his divorced wife had committed adultery. The only evidence of adultery was the uncorroborated testimony of a witness who related that he had been a friend of both the husband and wife for many years and that he had had illicit relations with the wife on numerous occasions both prior to and since the divorce. The witness stated that he made an offer to the husband and his attorney to testify to this misconduct for the sum of one hundred dollars, and further related that he advised the divorced wife and her attorney of the progress of these negotiations. The divorced wife denied the witness' story in whole and in detail and testified that just prior to the instant proceedings she had rejected the witness' attentions and threatened to have him arrested if he came to her apartment again.
Held: That the uncorroborated testimony of this witness was utterly incredible and unworthy of belief.
Appeal from a decree of the Hustings Court, Part II, of the city of Richmond. Hon. Ernest H. Wells, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Thomas I. Talley, for the appellant.
Arthur A. Ingram, for the appellee.
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.*
This is the conclusion reached in Letts Letts, 79 N.J.Eq. 630, 639, 82 A. 845, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1236, the leading case on the subject. See also, Evans Evans, 123 Okl. 9, 252 P. 837; 9 R.C.L., p. 332, section 111; 19 C.J., p. 141, section 364.
As was said in Wesley Wesley, 181 Ky. 135, 204 S.W. 165, "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 can not be sustained by the uncorroborated testimony of a single...
To continue reading
Request your trial