Martin v. Martin
Decision Date | 12 March 1936 |
Citation | 184 S.E. 220 |
Parties | MARTIN . v. MARTIN. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court of City of Richmond.
Divorce suit by Alexander L. Martin against Violet Jolly Martin, wherein the defendant filed a cross-bill. Judgment for the defendant on her cross-bill, and the plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, and EGGLESTON, JJ.
Fulton & Hall, McC. G. Finnigan, T. Dix Sutton, W. Griffith Purcell, and A. J. Baroody, all of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
Alfred J. Kirsh, Leon M. Bazile, and W. Kirk Mathews, all of Richmond, for defendant in error.
This is a suit for divorce. The plaintiff, Dr. Martin, in his bill and amended bill, charges cruelty, that his wife deserted him without cause, prays for divorce a mensa and that the decree may be merged later into one for absolute divorce. He also asks that the custody of their infant child be awarded to him.
His wife in her answer denies these allegations and in her cross-bill charges him with repeated acts of adultery, asks that there be decreed to her an absolute divorce, the custody of their infant child, and an allowance for their support.
Dr. Martin is a physician practicing in Richmond and thirty years old. His wife, Violet Jolly Martin, is twenty-eight. They were married on February 24, 1925, and their infant child, a son, was born on February 3, 1926. Mrs. Martin left her husband on August 17, 1932. This suit was brought in September, 1932. Final decree therein was entered on June 4, 1934.
A divorce from bed and board may be decreed for cruelty or desertion, Code, § 5104, and one from the bonds of matrimony for adultery, Code, § 5103 ( ). Causes of this nature usually turn upon the facts. In most cases the law applicable thereto has long been settled, adequately stated, and generally accepted.
Dr. Martin testified that his wife was unreasonably jealous and without cause, that she drank and took drugs to excess, was neurotic, at times hysterical, and on at least two occasions attempted to kill him. He said that on the morning of August 17, 1932, she attempted to cut his throat with a knife, and that in March, 1932, she attempted to asphyxiate him by turning on gas from the kitchen stove. Particularly, he tells us that without cause she charged that he was maintaining unlawful relations with a professional nurse, Miss Nettie Charles Kemp.
Because of antecedent complaints on the night of May 19, 1931, a conference be-tween his wife, himself, and Miss Kemp was by arrangement held in his automobile on one of Richmond's streets. On that occasion both he and Miss Kemp protested their innocence. This agreement, however, was reached: "I was to cease seeing the girl and my wife was to drop the matter." This agreement he did not keep. Miss Kemp was then living at 804 or 806 West Grace street. In October, 1931, she moved to apartment No. 4 at 3131 Hanover avenue, where she continued to live until March, 1932, at which apartment she was known as "Mrs. Charles." He visited her frequently there. When questioned as to the reasons for these visits, he answered:
Elsewhere he said: "She (Miss Kemp) was more or less black listed on the nurses' register, as my wife called up the hospital and proceeded to try to get her to lose her position, and later on in the year I gave the girl some more work and came in contact with her in that way."
When asked to name those from whom she secured work at his instance, he could give but one name. That was a surgical patient at a hospital. He recommended her to no other physician. He also tells us that he saw no name on the door of this Hanover avenue apartment to indicate its occupants, and that he never visited Miss Kemp at a nearby county home after she had left town.
When asked about visits to other women of questionable character, he said that such visits were strictly professional.
Mrs. Martin denies that she ever drank or took drugs to excess, or that she ever attempted to cut her husband's throat. She does say that she attempted to poison herself and that she turned on the gas from the kitchen stove. On this occasion she went back, got in bed with her husband, and was asphyxiated into insensibility. She tells us that the reason for these attempts was the attention which he was paying to other women, coupled with the fact that he told her that he no longer loved her and suggested that she get a divorce. In short, her statement is that life had become unbearable.
She tells us of changes in her husband's attitude towards her and of their discussion of Miss Kemp for the first time in August, 1930, when he admitted that he was in love with this woman. Matters went from bad to worse until the automobile conference which we have noted was held. She tells us what was then said and done:
She tells us what occurred on the morning of the day of final separation:
As a matter of fact she did kiss him when he left home on the afternoon of that day.
Mrs. Martin's distrust of her husband remained. She thought that she had seen him driving about town with Miss Kemp. She consulted counsel, who on January 16, 1932, employed Col. Frank Morgan, a private detective, to ascertain what were the facts. Morgan made his first and final re port on August 17th of that year. He testified that Dr. Martin was a frequent visitor at the Hanover avenue apartment, that on its door was the legend, "Mr. and Mrs. Charles, " and that Dr. Martin was there known as Mr. Charles, the husband of Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
MacDougall v. Levick
...432, 4 S.E.2d at 366–67 (citing 1 Bishop, Marriage, Divorce, and Separation §§ 258, 267, 841 at 107, 113, 359–60); Martin v. Martin, 166 Va. 109, 117, 184 S.E. 220, 224 (1936) (citing 2 Bishop, Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 1351, at 517–18); Counts v. Counts, 161 Va. 768, 775, 172 S.E......
-
Mullen v. Mullen
...these respects. The awarding of such alimony is highly discretionary, and we do not think the court abused its discretion. Martin v. Martin, 166 Va. 109, 184 S.E. 220; Eaton v. Davis, 176 Va. 330, 339, 10 S.E.2d 893; Hulcher v. Hulcher, 177 Va. 12, 12 S.E.2d 767. Fifteen hundred dollars wer......
- Planters Nat. Bank Of Fredericksburg v. E. G. Heflin Co. Inc
-
Mullen v. Mullen
...these respects. The awarding of such alimony is highly discretionary, and we do not think the court abused its discretion. Martin Martin, 166 Va. 109, 184 S.E. 220; Eaton Davis, 176 Va. 330, 339, 10 S.E.(2d) 893; Hulcher Hulcher, 177 Va. 12, 12 S.E.(2d) 13 Fifteen hundred dollars were allow......