West v. West

• Decision Date: 22 January 1920
• Citation: 101 S.E. 876
• Parties: WEST. v. WEST.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

101 S.E. 876

WEST.

v.WEST.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 22, 1920.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Alimony.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gloucester County.

Suit by Mary Sue West against James West. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. B. Richardson, of Richmond, and Jno. R. Saunders, of Saluda, for appellant.

C. S. Smith, Jr., of Gloucester, for appellee.

PRENTIS, J. The facts disclosed by this record are that James West married Mary Sue West after having been arrested and charged with seducing her under promise of marriage. She was at that time with child, and she alleged that he was its father. He admitted having previous illicit relations with her, and he also knew that she had previously had improper relations with other men. He claimed that until just after the marriage ceremony he had been told that the child would be born in November, and that he married her because he thought it probable that the child was his because of the time of their first sexual intercourse in February. Immediately after the ceremony, but before the marriage was consummated, however, he was told by his wife that the child would be born in July. He claims that on learning of this fact he concluded that he was not the father of the child. Upon this conclusion his whole defense and assignments of error rest. Notwithstanding his knowledge, however, of the previous unchaste character of his wife, he apparently condoned all of her previous offenses and cohabited with her on the night of the marriage. On the next morning he abandoned and deserted her, although he contributed small amounts from time to time thereafter for the support of his wife and the child. She instituted this suit alleging such desertion, and the court made her attorney an allowance of $25 on account of his fee and $10 for her support. At a later date, after the cause matured, the court made her an additional allowance of $15 per month, pending the litigation. Six months later a rule was entered against the appellant, alleging that he was two months in arrears in the payment of this temporary alimony. The answer to the rule states no reason for his default, except that he confidently believes that the child is not his and that his wife's moral character is bad, though no misconduct subsequent to the marriage is alleged. At the hearing, the court entered a final decree in favor of the wife, divorcing her from the bond of matrimony, fixing a total fee of $50 for her attorney, to be credited by the amount previously paid, and alimony at the rate of $25 per month until the further order of the court. It further ordered, as to the arrears of temporary alimony, that, unless paid within 15 days, the appellant should be imprisoned in the county jail for 10 days, and from this decree this appeal was allowed.

The controverted facts all relate to the claim of the appellant that it was impossible for him to have been the father of the child because of the date of his first carnal connection with her. In our view of the case this is immaterial, because the appellant, with full knowledge of all of the facts upon which he now relies, consummated his marriage with the appellee and thereby condoned all of her previous lapses from virtue. As the result of that marriage and...