Rasch v. Rasch
| Decision Date | 04 April 1907 |
| Citation | 66 A. 499,105 Md. 503 |
| Parties | RASCH v. RASCH. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Pere L. Wickes Judge.
Bill by Selena Rasch against John Rasch. From a decree overruling defendant's cross-bill, he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Argued before BRISCOE, BOYD, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, and BURKE, JJ.
S Gross Horwitz, for appellant.
William P. Constable, for appellee.
On October 22, 1903, the wife (appellee) filed a bill in circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City against the husband (appellant) for divorce a mensa et thoro, on the ground of desertion and cruel treatment. To this bill an answer was filed by the husband, denying the allegations set out therein, and charging the wife, since her marriage with him, with the crime of adultery. On the 9th of January, 1904, the husband filed a cross-bill against the wife for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for adultery with one Michael J. Dellahunty of Baltimore City, between the 1st day of August and the 11th day of October, 1903, and with divers other men who are unknown to him. The bill also charged illicit carnal intercourse with other men unknown to the plaintiff at the time of the marriage. These allegations were denied by the wife in an answer to the bill. A replication was filed to each bill, and the case was heard on the bills, answers, and proof. Both bills were dismissed by the court below, and from the decree dismissing the cross-bill an appeal has been taken.
There is no appeal from the decree dismissing the original bill. The rules of law applicable to this class of cases cannot admit of dispute, as they have been settled by numerous decisions of this court. They are clearly and fully stated in Kremelberg v. Kremelberg, 52 Md. 553, and Shufeldt v. Shufeldt, 86 Md. 529, 39 A. 416. The proof in the case at bar is quite voluminous, and, as usual in these cases, is somewhat contradictory. It would not aid the conclusion we have reached to review it in detail, or to prolong this opinion by attempting to reconcile the glaring conflicts in the testimony of some of the witnesses. The sole question on the appeal is whether the charge of adultery alleged in the cross-bill is supported by the testimony, and we shall state only the material parts of the testimony bearing on this question.
The appellant and appellee were married on the 15th day of January, 1903, and on the 22d of October of the same year a bill for divorce was filed by her. They lived together as man and wife until the 11th of October, 1903, when he left his home, and took with him his household effects. The basis of the suit rests upon certain letters which the husband found on his wife's bureau, on his return home on the 11th of October, 1903. Two of the letters were from Dellahunty to the appellee, dated October 1, 1903, signed "Del," and addressed the wife as "dearest." They contain expressions of the following import: The wife's letter to Dellahunty, is dated the 11th of October, 1903, was sealed, and contains such expressions as, "Excuse hasty note this time as it might be dangerous." "Do not fail to come." "Lots of Love, I am, Yours, Leonore." In addition to these letters, there was testimony by the wife that she had met Dellahunty on September 30th, in the afternoon and again that night, and on the 1st of October. There was also...
To continue reading
Request your trial