Shufeldt v. Shufeldt
| Decision Date | 04 January 1898 |
| Citation | 39 A. 416,86 Md. 519 |
| Parties | SHUFELDT v. SHUFELDT. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county, in equity.
Bill by Florence A. Shufeldt against Robert W. Shufeldt for divorce. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, PAGE, and BOYD JJ.
John S Webb H. R. Webb, and Harris Lindsley, for appellant. Hattersly W. Talbott and C. W. Prettyman, for appellee.
The original bill which was filed in this case, June 9, 1896 relied on cruelty and abandonment as the grounds for the divorce sought at that time, and prayed for an allowance of alimony. The court had passed an order requiring the appellee to pay alimony pendente lite and counsel fees, and had set the cause for hearing, when the appellant filed an amended bill, in which she charged the defendant with adultery. It is alleged that on the 11th and 13th days of September, 1895, he committed adultery with a certain woman named in the bill, whom we will speak of as the co-respondent, although not technically such, in a house on Thirteenth street, in the city of Washington; and that since the autumn of the year 1895, subsequently to the desertion of the complainant, the defendant has lived with this woman in his house in Montgomery county Md., and in said house had on repeated occasions, the exact dates being unknown to the complainant, committed adultery with her. An answer was filed by the defendant denying the charges, and testimony was taken. The bill having been dismissed, this appeal was taken.
Under our view of the case, it will be unnecessary to refer to the charges of desertion and cruelty, excepting so far as they may reflect upon the other question. The complainant and defendant were married September 4, 1895, in the state of New York, and went at once to the home of the defendant, at Takoma, Montgomery county, in this state, arriving there the day after the marriage. She remained there until October 26th, when she went to her mother's, returning on November 5th to the house of the defendant, where she remained until the 7th inst., when she left, and has not been there since. There is some conflict between them as to the cause of her going away, but it seems apparent that she went to her mother's at the instance of the defendant, and finally left his house because she could not live there as a wife is entitled to live in her husband's home. In October, 1891, while the defendant's first wife was in an insane asylum, the co-respondent, who was then 19 years of age, went to live with the defendant as his housekeeper and a companion for his children, at the wages of $12 per month. In April, 1892, the first wife died, leaving four children,--one son about 14 years of age, and another about 12, a daughter about 9, and another daughter not quite 2 years of age. When this young girl first went to the house of the defendant, she occupied a room in the third story, keeping the youngest child in her room, and the other daughter occupied a room on the same floor. The defendant's bedroom was then on the second floor, adjoining his study. In the latter part of 1892 the house was altered by the addition of a tower, a kitchen, and servant's room over it. The co-respondent then moved downstairs into the room formerly occupied by the defendant as his bedroom, and he went into the front room, which he had used as his study. There is a door between these two rooms. The two girls were put in a room in rear of the co-respondent's room, but there was no door between them. The servant's room is still beyond that, being separated from it by a small hall. The plaintiff swore that the door between the rooms occupied by the defendant and the co-respondent would neither latch nor lock while she was there, and that the defendant told her it had not closed since he had put a furnace in the house, as the jambs were shrunken. He denied that, and said However that may be, the fact remains that a year or so after this young girl went there she was brought downstairs, and occupied the room adjoining the defendant, with a door between them, while his two little girls were put in a room which did not communicate with either their father's or that of their "companion," as she says she was and is. The children were so small that it was deemed necessary to lock them in their room at night, but it was not thought necessary to have them with their companion, or where she could communicate with them at night, except by going out into the hall, and then to their door. The eldest son of the defendant died, the exact date of which is not given in the record, and the second son was sent away to school in 1893, when he was about 13 years of age, and remained away until July, 1895. A letter from that son to his grandfather shows that the defendant was keeping him away from home on the pretense that the woman in charge of his sisters said she would not stay if he returned. She denied on the stand that she had ever made any objection to his returning, but in point of fact, for some reason, he was kept away until the July before the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant.
These parties were so situated that it would be very difficult to establish by direct evidence many acts of intimacy or misconduct, as there was little opportunity for any one to witness them if they occurred. A servant who lived there in 1893 swore that she saw the defendant kiss this girl in the hall, and also that between 5 and 6 o'clock one Sunday morning a fire broke out in the neighborhood, and they were aroused, and all went out to see it. Afterwards she returned, went upstairs, and thus describes what she saw: "I noticed that Dr. Shufeldt's bedroom was open, and the housekeeper's door was open, and I noticed that her bedroom had not been used that night, because she done during the day some sewing, and she put it there in the evening, and I saw it in the same place where she put it before." She said the sewing was on the bed Saturday evening, and Sunday morning it was at the same place where it had been put Saturday. Another servant, who lived there in June and July, 1894, swore she saw him kiss her one morning after coming from town. She also swore that she saw the defendant in the housekeeper's room late at night, in his nightclothes. The defendant denied that he was in there in his nightclothes, but says he had on a dressing gown; that she was very sick with typhoid fever and some complications, which lasted for several months. He is corroborated by Dr. Beeble as to the sickness, who testified that he had attended her in June and July, 1894; but the defendant, who was formerly a surgeon in the army, admits he had not practiced regularly since 1889, when he was retired from the army, and had never, during that time, attended any other case of typhoid fever. Of course, there would be no impropriety in a physician being in the bedroom of a patient, or applying remedies for her relief; but the proof in this case shows that the defendant, over and over again, gave this girl cold baths, carrying her into the bathroom for that purpose, and frequently applied cups to her abdomen, when no one else was present. If her condition required such treatment, as the testimony shows it probably did, it would seem to have been at least more delicate if he had either a nurse, or had called in the other servant when it was necessary to give her baths. It shows an intimacy that, to say the least, was very indelicate, under all the circumstances. The application of cups may have been required unexpectedly, and when no one was present that he could have called on; but there certainly could have been no necessity for him, a man then about 44 years of age, not in regular practice, to administer the baths, especially as the evidence shows that the servant woman did frequently wait on her.
What we have spoken of occurred prior to the marriage of the plaintiff, and is only relied on to show the relation between them at that time. Mrs. Shufeldt arrived at Takoma Park on September 5, 1895, and just before her arrival the co-respondent left the defendant's house. On the evening of the 9th of that month the defendant met this girl at the corner of Lafayette Square by appointment; she having, as she says, some presents for the children. On the 12th inst, he wrote her a letter, although he was suffering greatly at the time from a fall. In it were such expressions as, "Be a very good girl, and try hard to find a nice home." "Believe me, Alphild, ever your old friend, the doctor," etc. The next day, according to his and her testimony, he went to the residence of Mr. Scharf, in Washington City, where she was then employed as a domestic, and went to the side door, and inquired for her, after asking permission of Mr. Scharf. He gave her a letter he had for her, and asked her if she could not walk up the street with him. She got permission from Mr. Scharf, whose wife was out, put on her hat, and joined him at the corner of Fourteenth and Princeton streets, and they walked about five blocks, to the junction of the car line he...
To continue reading
Request your trial