Watson v. Watson, 7052.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 7052.,7052. |
| Citation | 163 S.E. 768 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | WATSON. v. WATSON. |
Syllabus by the Court.
Evidence which merely raises suspicion will not support a charge of adultery. Mur-rin v. Murrin, 94 W. Va. 605, 119 S. E. 812.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Suit by Frances H. Watson against William E. Watson. Decree in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Decree reversed, decree entered in accordance with opinion, and the suit dismissed.
Rollo J. Conley, of Fairmont, for appellant.
Victor H. Shaw, of Fairmont, for appellee.
HATCHER, P.
In this suit a divorce was sought upon the grounds of habitual drunkenness, cruelty, and adultery. In a written opinion the circuit court found that all three charges were sustained. A decree of absolute divorce was entered, and the defendant directed to pay alimony at the rate of $250 a month.
The finding of adultery was based on evidence that the defendant visited a lady some four or five times at her apartment in the evening, remaining several hours each time. The defendant and the lady frankly admitted the visits, but denied any improp-er conduct. It appeared that they had known each other for a number of years and were good friends, that the lady bore an excellent reputation, and that defendant was at the time partially estranged from his wife. There is. no evidence that he is of a lecherous disposition. This is the second marriage of both plaintiff and defendant. She admits that he paid court to her for several years before securing his divorce from his first wife. Her counsel takes the position that there is not even a breath of suspicion against her character. None is advanced. But, if defendant's attention to plaintiff prior to his divorce reflected in no way on her, why not view the association of the co-respondent and defendant with the same liberality? The most which should be said of their association is that they were indiscreet and their conduct was calculated to arouse suspicion. But we have repeatedly held that evidence which merely raised suspicion will not support a charge of adultery. Huff v. Huff, 7-"> W. Va. 330, 80 S. E. 846, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282: Nicely v. Nicely, 81 W. Va. 269, 94 S. 10. 719; Schutte v. Schutte, 90 W. Va. 787, 111 S. E. 840; Murrin v. Murrin, 94 W. Va. 605, 119 S. E. 812; Edwards v. Edwards, 100 W. Va. 446, 456, 145 S. E. S13; Criser v. Criser, 109 W. Va. 696, 156 S. E. 84; Shook v. Shook (W. Va.) 161 S. E. 235, 237. We therefore hold this charge to be unsupported.
The plain preponderance. of the evidence shows that the defendant is not an habitual drunkard; but it does appear that throughout the entire period covered by the evidence he has been addicted to the use of liquor, and that sometimes he has drunk to excess.
The plaintiff testifies that, when the defendant was drinking, he was unreasonable and abusive of her, and that his conduct caused her extreme mental and nervous distress. Her testimony as...
To continue reading
Request your trial