While the master's report is advisory only, it should be given the fullest consideration as regards the credibility of witnesses whom he has seen and heard, and in this respect his report should not be lightly disregarded. Danze v. Danze, 185 Pa. Super. 111, 114, 115, 137 A.2d 809 (1958). The defendant's evidence does "not overcome the plaintiff's evidence of willfulness and maliciousness."
The principle of the Reiter case was again clearly enunciated in Dukenfield v. Dukenfield, 177 Pa. Super. 215, 110 A.2d 858 (1955), and although there was a dissenting opinion filed, an allocatur was refused by the Supreme Court. See also: Danzev. Danze, 185 Pa. Super. 111, 114, 137 A.2d 809 (1958). We agree with the court below that a case of indignities was made out in this record and that the master "treats rather lightly and airily the conduct of the defendant with regard to her relations with a certain doctor . . ."
In conclusion, our review of this record reveals that the master properly recommended the granting of a divorce, and that the court below did not err in approving the master's report and entering a final decree. See DiNunzio v. DiNunzio, 185 Pa. Super. 106, 138 A.2d 212; Danze v. Danze, 185 Pa. Super. 111, 137 A.2d 809. Decree affirmed.