Naylor v. Naylor

• Decision Date: 24 May 1915
• Docket Number: 156-1914
• Citation: 59 Pa.Super. 547
• Parties: Naylor v. Naylor, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

59 Pa.Super. 547

Naylor v. Naylor, Appellant

No. 156-1914

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 24, 1915

Argued December 4, 1914 [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter]

Appeal by defendant, from decree of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co.-1910, No. 40, granting divorce in case of Charles J. Naylor v. Fredericka Stephens Naylor.

Libel in divorce.

Exceptions to report of master.

The court below filed the following per curiam opinion.

This is a proceeding in divorce instituted by a husband against his wife on the ground of adultery. Hearings were had before a master, who reported adversely to the libelant and recommended that the libel be dismissed. We have before us exceptions to this report.

It was said in Howe v. Howe, 16 Pa.Super. 193: " Of whatever drudgery the court of original jurisdiction may relieve itself in this class of cases by appointing a master, neither it nor we can escape the burden of a careful consideration of the evidence in order to ascertain whether it does in very truth establish the statutory grounds for a divorce." The rule quoted must of necessity apply when the master has recommended that the libel be dismissed.

It is difficult in an opinion to make a complete review of all the evidence in this case. It is sufficient for our purpose to refer to certain features. The libelant is an officer in the United States Army, and in the month of September, 1910, he was stationed at Newark, New Jersey. For some time previous to September 24 he had become suspicious of the relations existing between his wife and one Allen D. O'Bryan, a man employed by an army contracting firm. O'Bryan had met the libelant and his wife at a Western army post, and renewed his acquaintance with them in Newark. The libelant and O'Bryan were both of convivial habits, and had many times become intoxicated together. O'Bryan spent much of his time at the libelant's house, frequently staying there all night. Libelant testified that on one occasion he went downstairs early in the morning and discovered his wife in the arms of O'Bryan. On another occasion he was informed by his child that O'Bryan had been on a Fall River steamer when the respondent and her children were on the way to New England to make a visit to libelant's people. These facts, with others, caused the libelant to be suspicious and he examined his apartments and discovered a number of letters which were written by O'Bryan to the respondent. These letters were offered in evidence, and to state it mildly, were of an exceedingly affectionate character. The libelant then employed a firm of detectives to shadow his wife and O'Bryan. The result of their investigation was the development of the fact that O'Bryan and the respondent were at the Hotel Braddock on One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street, New York City, on September 24, 1910.

The libel charges the respondent with adultery on September 24, 1910, with Allen D. O'Bryan at the Hotel Braddock, and the evidence to sustain this charge is that of three men employed by the detective firm and another man who was a friend of counsel for the libelant.

Mrs. Naylor was shadowed by two of the detectives from Newark to New York City, where she met O'Bryan. According to the evidence of these witnesses, the respondent and O'Bryan went into an hotel in the southern part of New York City for a short space of time. They were then followed to the Hotel Braddock, on One hundred and Twenty-fifth street, which hotel is described by these witnesses as a house of assignation. The lady sat in a waiting room while O'Bryan went to the desk, with one of the witnesses standing close by. While the witness did not actually see O'Bryan write his name, he had the appearance of one writing his name on the register. As soon as he left the desk, the witnesses approached and registered underneath the signature, " J. H. Henbent and wife, Scranton, Pa." Room 82. The witness testified that the ink on the signature above his own was fresh, and the witness was assigned to Room 88. That was at about twelve o'clock noon. The room to which the witness was assigned was on the opposite side of the hall from Room 82.

The two detectives telephoned to their chief, who in a short while appeared with the witness Clem. Clem was not a detective, but as was above stated, was a friend of counsel for the libelant. These four witnesses spent the time until half-past six o'clock P. M. in and about the room opposite Room 82, and at six-thirty the four witnesses saw O'Bryan and the respondent leave the room and take the elevator. They subsequently saw them in the cafe from which place on being scrutinized they hurriedly left the building. The witnesses carefully examined the faces of the two persons as they took the elevator, and examined the room they had lately vacated, seeing evidences of the room having been used, the bed with signs indicating that it had been occupied, the washstand and towels having been used. The libelant testified that his wife arrived home at Newark that night at about eight o'clock.

The respondent and O'Bryan testified substantially to this effect: That O'Bryan had invited libelant and his wife to go to the Polo Grounds in New York City to witness a baseball game or attend a matinee; that libelant had declined to go, but that the respondent accepted the invitation; that she had often spent the day or part of the day in New York with O'Bryan, with the knowledge and consent of her husband, and that they had gone to ball games and matinees and other entertainments. They both testified that they met down town in the city of New York on the day in question; that they had some drinks at the Hotel Astor; that for the purpose of obtaining a sea food luncheon they went to One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street near which there was a restaurant known to O'Bryan; that they went to the Hotel Braddock for the purpose of obtaining some drinks, arriving there approximately at one o'clock; that after refreshing themselves at the Hotel Braddock they went to the restaurant nearby and had luncheon, after which they had returned to the Hotel Braddock because O'Bryan was somewhat nauseated by his lunch. There they had some more drinks and proceeded to the Polo Grounds and witnessed the baseball game. After the game they returned to the Hotel Braddock, where they had more drinks, the reason assigned for stopping at One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street on their return being that the respondent wished to do some telephoning and O'Bryan wished to buy some tobacco at a certain store in that neighborhood. The respondent testified that she arrived home at about 6.30 P. M.

The defense offered in addition the evidence of certain employees of the Hotel Braddock and of the restaurant at which the parties had luncheon, for the purpose of establishing that the only part of the hotel occupied by these people on the day in question was the cafe, and also that they did obtain their lunch at a place other than the Hotel Braddock. These witnesses were confronted by O'Bryan and the respondent in the company of counsel for the respondent some days after September 24. It appeared that immediately upon obtaining information from the detectives the libelant separated from his wife and, through counsel, respondent became informed of the charge against her, whereupon her counsel called upon counsel for the libelant and was made acquainted with the nature of the charge. Respondent's counsel afterwards arranged to bring the parties into the presence of the servants of the Hotel Braddock and the restaurant. The exact date when this occurred is not fixed by anyone. No memorandum was made as to when it occurred, but a mere estimate was given with relation to certain other events.

The respondent and O'Bryan denied that they occupied a bed room at the Hotel Braddock, denied that there ever had been any illicit relations between them, and the respondent denied that her husband discovered her in the arms of O'Bryan in the early morning at her home on the occasion referred to by libelant. They both explained the letters as being letters which were usual and customary in the loose social life at army posts, and that while they were affectionate in character, they were known to libelant, and, in fact, the respondent said that she scarcely ever read them, and that they were always shown to her husband as silly manifestations on the part of O'Bryan. There was also evidence produced on the part of the respondent of a witness who visited her home on the evening in question, tending to show that she arrived home before the hour fixed by her husband. O'Bryan testified that he did not sign " J. H. Henbent and wife" on the register in the Hotel Braddock. With reference to this signature the libelant produced David H. Carvalho, a handwriting expert from New York, who expressed the opinion that the hand that wrote the letters which were admitted also wrote the name upon the hotel register. The respondent produced a teller and a clerk from one of the trust companies in Philadelphia, who testified that the writings were not by the same hand, and that the name on the hotel register was written by some one who was attempting to simulate the handwriting of O'Bryan. By an examination of the hotel register, however, it also appeared that on a number of previous occasions the same signature of " J. H. Henbent and wife, Scranton, Pa.," appeared.

In rebuttal the respondent was confronted by a letter written by her to her husband, in which she attempted to explain the affair when she was found in O'Bryan's arms in the early morning. In this letter she begged her husband not " to get mad" and...