Opinion
April 27, 1931.
July 8, 1931.
Divorce — Indignities to husband — Charges against honor of husband and chastity of a step-daughter — Evidence — Sufficiency.
In a libel for divorce by a husband on the ground that the respondent offered such indignities to his person as to render his condition intolerable and life burdensome, there was evidence that the respondent treated the libellant in an outrageous manner and charged him with having frequent sexual intercourse with his daughter by a former marriage. At the trial the respondent admitted making the charges and reiterated them. There was not a single corroborating circumstance to support her allegations and the libellant and his daughter denied the charges.
Such evidence was sufficient to establish the libellant's right to a divorce and the decree in divorce was properly granted.
Appeal No. 19, April T., 1931, by respondent from decree of C.P., Allegheny County, April T., 1929, No. 2248, in the case of Humbert Cavazza v. Louisa Comis Cavazza.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE and DREW, JJ. Affirmed.
Libel in divorce. Before DREW, J.
The facts are stated in the following opinion of the court below:
An appeal having been taken from the decree of divorce granted in the above entitled case, we now file this opinion as required by Rule 58 of the Superior Court.
The divorce was sought and won on the ground that respondent had offered such indignities to the person of the libellant as to render his condition intolerable and life burdensome. The testimony which we thought credible substantially supported this allegation. It is true that that testimony was firmly contradicted by the respondent but we could not believe her testimony. We did believe the testimony of the libellant and his witnesses, principally that of his children who lived in the house with these parties. This testimony showed that the respondent, the second wife of the libellant and considerably younger than himself, was anxious to get the children out of the house, and that after arguments had failed, although it made life there very disagreeable, that she resorted to most serious allegations against libellant and his daughter, Albertina, in that she charged them with frequent sexual intercourse.
There can be no doubt that she made these charges against the father and daughter because she admitted the same at the trial, and insisted that they were true. She told of a number of occasions when she claimed to have actually seen this father and daughter in that relationship. She said that the daughter frequently visited her father in the nighttime when he was alone in his bedroom, and that she saw her go into his room at such times clad in nightclothes, through which she claimed she could see everything. She admitted that she had told other women of this relationship. Her speech and attitude at the trial convinced us that she would not stop at anything to gain her point. Her allegations were flatly contradicted by her husband and his daughter.
The libellant called Dr. Disque, a well-known and reputable physician of Pittsburgh, and he testified that he had made a vaginal examination of Albertina Cavazza and that it was evident that she had never had intercourse with any male. He said it could not be possible that she did what she was accused of having done.
There were other distressing things in the case, such as a hateful temper exhibited by the respondent at almost all times, and of her running out of the house and crying out, so that the neighborhood was aroused, that she was being abused, all of which had their effect upon libellant's health, causing him to consult physicians, spend time in a hospital and take a trip to Europe on the advice of his physician.
But we rest our decision on one ground alone, the outrageous charges of the respondent against the honor of her husband and the chastity of his daughter. We cannot imagine anything which would offer such indignities to the libellant and render his condition more intolerable than these allegations of his wife. We did not believe her statements, we could not believe them under the circumstances, there was not a single corroborating circumstance to support her allegations. It could well be that there would not be witnesses to such acts, but if this man and young woman were so extremely careless in their conduct as she alleges in her testimony they were, being guilty of this act in a hallway, and in the kitchen, in places where anyone in the house might come at any time, it would not be surprising if others with the wife had seen some of these alleged happenings. Her allegations are not only against nature and all decent conduct, but they are absolutely against common sense and every atom of caution and shame if perpetrated in the manner in which she claimed.
In addition, we noticed carefully Albertina Cavazza while she was on the stand. Her eyes blazed with fury when she was forced to deny the charges made against her. She was a picture of indignation and righteous wrath. We think that her feelings were genuine, and certainly she had good cause for them if the charges were not true.
For these reasons we granted the divorce, and after a review of the testimony for the purpose of this opinion we are now satisfied no mistake was made.
The court granted the divorce. Respondent appealed.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
Charles G. Notari, for appellant.
John A. Metz, for appellee.
Argued April 27, 1931.
The decree of the lower court granting the divorce is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge DREW.