Sause v. Sause

• Decision Date: 13 January 1949
• Docket Number: 60.
• Citation: 63 A.2d 632,192 Md. 88
• Parties: SAUSE v. SAUSE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

63 A.2d 632

192 Md. 88

SAUSE v. SAUSE.

No. 60.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 13, 1949

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; E. Paul Mason Judge.

Suit by Ida Black Sause against John Henry Sause, III, for divorce a mensa. From a decree denying wife a divorce a mensa dismissing bill of complaint, and disallowing counsel fee to her solicitor, the wife appeals.

Decree affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded.

Hyman Ginsberg, of Baltimore (Ginsberg & Ginsberg and Manuel E. Lefko, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

J Calvin Carney, of Baltimore, for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, and HENDERSON JJ.

HENDERSON Judge.

This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City denying the appellant a divorce a mensa dismissing her bill of complaint, and disallowing a counsel fee to her solicitor.

The parties were married on October 3, 1942, having known each other from childhood. The appellee served in the United States Navy from February, 1942 until August, 1945, and saw active service in the European theatre in landing craft. Thereafter the parties resided at 204 S. Washington Street, Baltimore, Maryland, in a house owned by them as tenants by the entireties. Their infant daughter was born in March 1946. After leaving the Navy, the appellee worked for three months as a mail carrier, and then sporadically for his father in the 'house repair' business. He made no effort to take training under the 'G.I. Bill of Rights'. On July 12, 1947, the father 'filed' him. A few days later Mr. and Mrs. Sause went to the Phipps' clinic of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he was examined by a psychiatrist. On August 15, 1947, he packed up and left the home. They had ceased marital relations on August 1, when the husband tole her that he was 'through with' her. There seemed to be nothing in the wife's conduct that would justify, or even explain, his action, other than a statement that she 'nagged' him, and they argued over the purchase of twin beds. For some time previous the wife had been working at the Western Electric Co., with his consent, earning $54 a week. She spent all her earnings on the upkeep of the house. Her mother, who lived next door, took care of the child while she was at work. She is 34 years of age, he is 37.

When the appellee left his own home he went to his father's. The latter became apprehensive about his son's mental condition and sent him to Dr. Truitt, a psychiatrist. After four visits, Dr. Truitt advised that he go to Seton Institute. His father paid for his treatment and expenses there. He was still there when the case was tried below.

The medical testimony indicates that the appellee was suffering from a genuine mental disturbance. Dr. Truitt gave his opinion that he was 'a mental borderline case of a personality, certainly mentally sick, emotionally sick. * * * I felt he needed hospital care and arranged for his admission to Seton Institute. * * * I would say he was terribly confused and unable to intelligently and emotionally handle himself or his situation'. He testified that the patient 'did not seem to have any great ill feeling towards his wife * * *. He felt rather guilty about his situation, his married life.' Dr. Mary D. Ely, a psychiatrist connected with Seton Institute, stated that while his condition had improved, he 'requires further treatment and would probably not be able to earn his living and support his wife and child'. Dr. Ely stated that 'the technical diagnosis is psycho-neurosis, mixed type' which includes 'a degree of nervousness and a degree of tension and anxiety which precludes effective working and carrying out of his life's work or duties'. In response to questions by the Chancellor, she described the extenrnal symptoms of a neurosis, such as a 'terrified expression; a tendency to be very indecisive about * * * simple things * * * a tendency to cower * * * and an anxious expression * * * very widely dilated pupils of his eyes, his expression'.

The appellant testified that she thought 'there was nothing wrong with Henry other than he was a bit lazy * * *. He could do a good day's work when he wanted to'. However, she must have thought there was a possibility of mental trouble when she accompanied him to the Phipps. Dr. Reifschneider, a surgeon and not a psychiatrist, who examined him at the instance of the Chancellor to determine whether he was able to appear in court, testified he thought Mr. Sause was 'in fit mental and physical shape to be supporting his wife and child'. He quoted the appellee as saying 'if he could talk it over with his wife he could go back again with his wife and try to make a go of it, provided she tried to get along too.' The Chancellor observed the appellee when on the stand and heard his testimony, which was rather confused. He either could not remember events leading up to the separation, or assigned trivial causes for it. He professed a desire to be reconciled, but didn't know whether he could 'make a go of it'.

Mere...