Opinion
03-11-1891
DUNN v. DUNN.
C. E. Hendrickson, for complainant. M. R. Sooy, for defendant.
On bill for divorce.
Bill for divorce by Robert G. Dunn against Sarah E. Dunn, on the ground of adultery.
C. E. Hendrickson, for complainant.
M. R. Sooy, for defendant.
BIRD, V. C. I think the testimony in this case points unerringly to the guilt of the defendant. Her own daughter, aged about 14 years, says that she repeatedly saw her on Keegan's lap, and saw them kiss and embrace each other. She also says that she saw them lying on the bed together in a most unbecoming attitude. Mr. Mooney gives evidence to seeing them in the same situation upon the bed at another time. Although he is a detective, he has lived in the city of Burlington a long time, and if he were unworthy of credit I cannot but think he could readily have been impeached. But there are many circumstances which so strongly tend to corroborate what the daughter and Mooney say that I cannot disbelieve them. That Keegan visited the defendant frequently they both admit. For several weeks he called upon her two and three times a week. The excuse which they both make for these visits is that he was collecting insurance of her, which was payable weekly, and that he was making remittance to her for a species of compound which he was selling for her or on her account. But the striking and relentless feature of this testimony is that on these occasions he remained, according to his testimony, from a half to three quarters of an hour. He says he went oftener than he otherwise would, because it frequently happened that she did not have the money to pay the amount due. The inquiry, of course, is, why remain alone in the house and in the bedroom, which was also a sitting room, with this married lady, from a half to three-quarters of an hour, three times in a week, if the object of the visit was only to collect a few dimes if Mrs. Dunn had them, or to learn whether she had them or not, in the one case, and in the other to pay over to her the very few dollars, at the most, for compound which he had sold, if he had sold any? In the first instance, it was only necessary for him to ascertain whether she had the few dimes to pay or not, which was determinable upon a simple inquiry; and in the latter, it was only necessary for him to present a statement of his sales and the amounts collected. Many of his visits were late in the evening. Another fact equally convincing appears in the case. Mrs. Dunn sought to induce the court to believe that the charge was utterly groundless, because she was not at any time during the periods of these visits in a physical condition to admit of sexual intercourse. From her statement, the inference is that she had been and then was suffering from a disease which rendered such intercourse impossible. In this respect the refutation seems to be complete. In order to sustain her assertion in this respect, she swore that she had been suffering from a miscarriage; but in this she is emphatically contradicted by the physician who attended her, and her husband swears that he had intercourse with her, from time to time, during this period. When to this is added the fact that since this suit has been pending Keegan has moved in the same house with the defendant, and has continued for many weeks to occupy rooms therein, the proof seems to be manifold that this bill has been properly filed. It might not be amiss to say that the defendant attempted to shield herself from the fatal consequences of her transgression by attempting to prove (but without first alleging it by way of answer) that the complainant had also been guilty of violating his marital obligations. But her failure in this respect was so complete that her counsel makes no reference to it whatsoever in his brief. I will advise a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill.