Summary
In Poole v. Poole, 176 Md. 696 (corroboration of but one assault) the court found that alleged outbreaks of temper, cursing, and swearing, without more, would furnish no grounds for divorce and that if a decision depended upon evidence of physical violence, it would not avail the plaintiff as she had condoned her husband's actions by continuing to live with him for more than four months with no apparent fear of injury to her person or health.
Summary of this case from Neff v. NeffOpinion
[No. 25, April Term, 1939.]
Decided May 17th, 1939.
Divorce — Cruelty — Unfounded Charge of Adultery.
The fact that the husband from time to time accused the wife of adultery, without the slightest foundation for the accusation, and at the hearing introduced testimony containing insinuations to the same effect, taken in connection with his conduct in constantly quarrelling with her, usually as a consequence of his drinking and sprees, and his insistence on having, without his wife's consent, his relatives to live with them, held to constitute cruelty, justifying a divorce a mensa.
Decided May 17th, 1939.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carroll County, In Equity (PARKE, J.).
Bill by Ruth Viola Poole against William Halbert Poole. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., OFFUTT, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, JOHNSON, and DELAPLAINE, JJ.
D. Eugene Walsh, for the appellant.
James E. Boylan, Jr., for the appellee.
Unreported cases.