Opinion
[No. 5, October Term, 1938.]
Decided November 16th, 1938.
Divorce — Cruelty — Condonation.
Where the wife, after an assault on her by the husband, returned to her parents and brought a suit for divorce, but abandoned this on a subsequent reconciliation, such condonation did not cancel the husband's offense, if a subsequent, and final, separation, uncondoned, was due to the husband's subsequent cruelty or misconduct.
Acts which in themselves do not constitute a ground for divorce may nevertheless constitute a breach of the condition of reconciliation.
Testimony by a household servant that she saw the husband strike his wife, and by the physician who treated the wife for bruises, held sufficient corroboration of the wife's testimony as to the husband's assault upon her.
Condonation, after acts of cruelty by the husband, depends upon circumstances and the situation of the parties, and whether there has been forgivness and reconciliation, and the circumstances should be such as to indicate an intent by the wife to forgive the husband's transgressions; the condonation should mean and intend a reconciliation, with the voluntary resumption of marital relations.
Where, after an assault by the husband on the wife, she swore out a warrant charging him with the assault, the fact that the wife subsequently prosecuted the case to conviction destroyed the husband's defense of condonation, based on his allegations that they had intercourse after the swearing out of the warrant and before the finding of an indictment.
Decided November 16th, 1938.
Appeal from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City (DENNIS, C.J.).
Bill by Frieda F. Glass against Louis J. Glass. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Ernest F. Fadum, with whom was Daniel Ellison on the brief, for the appellant.
J. Francis Ford, with whom was Herbert R. O'Conor, on the brief, for the appellee.
Unreported cases.