Opinion
March 15, 1933.
April 17, 1933.
Divorce — Fraud — False representation as to pregnancy — Decree.
In a libel in divorce on the ground of indignities and fraud, the libellant failed to offer any evidence as to indignities to his person but testified that the respondent had falsely represented to him that she was pregnant by him. He alleged that he was persuaded to marry her because of her false representations and threats of suicide. There was no evidence, however, of any coercion or duress or any testimony indicating any aberration of his mind rendering him incapable of entering into a valid contract of marriage.
In such case the alleged false representations were not such as entitled the libellant to a divorce and the decree of the court below dismissing the libel will be affirmed.
Appeal No. 164, October T., 1932, by libellant from decree of C.P., Chester County, September T., 1929, No. 153, in the case of Charles Ivan Herr v. Elizabeth Herr.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.
Libel in divorce. Before WINDLE, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The case was referred to George Rupert, Esq., as master, who recommended the dismissal of the libel. On exceptions to the master's report, the court dismissed the exceptions and the libel. Libellant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.
W.S. Harris, for appellant.
No book or appearance for appellee.
Argued March 15, 1933.
This is an appeal by libellant from the decree of the court below dismissing a libel in divorce in accordance with the recommendations of the master. Libellant asks for a divorce a.v.m. from respondent on the ground of indignities to his person and fraud. No testimony was submitted in regard to indignities, but it was averred and testimony offered that respondent had falsely represented to libellant that she, respondent, was pregnant by him, libellant, prior to the marriage and that she, by means of such false representations and certain threats of suicide, persuaded libellant to marry her. Libellant admitted in his testimony that he had had intercourse with respondent before marriage. There was no doubt that the latter's representations were false as she was not pregnant at all. The master recommended that the libel be dismissed. Exceptions filed by libellant were overruled and the libel dismissed. From that order this appeal is taken by libellant.
Appellant assigns as error the refusal of the court to give any consideration to the testimony of Rev. W.H. Shade, who performed the marriage ceremony, concerning the mental condition of libellant at the time of his marriage to respondent. We have carefully read the testimony of the reverend gentleman and all that it discloses is that on three occasions libellant came to him and wanted him to pray for him. Prayers might have been more efficacious had he sought them before he yielded to temptation. On another occasion he came to the church one night and came to the altar at the close of services and said he was going to die.
The only other witness was Anna N. Pyle who conducted a rooming house where libellant lived for eight weeks. Her testimony was to the effect that libellant did not sleep in the bed very much and walked the house most of the night. She did not know him except as he lived in her home.
There is nothing in the testimony indicating any aberration of mind rendering libellant incapable of entering into a valid contract of marriage. He no doubt was worried under the circumstances, knowing his previous relations with the respondent. Remorse and regret often follow the pursuit of forbidden fruit and it may not be considered worth the price paid for it. The minister could not have considered him mentally unsound, or he certainly would not have performed the ceremony. There is no evidence of coercion or duress of libellant forcing him into the marriage contract.
The alleged false representations are not such as entitle libellant to a divorce. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 30 Pa. 417. Todd v. Todd, 149 Pa. 60; Schwindt v. Schwindt, 66 Pa. Super. 217. See also Anderson v. Anderson, 40 Pa. C.C. 288; Reifsnyder v. Reifsnyder, 3 Berks 68.
There was no error in dismissing the libel.
The assignments of error are overruled and the decree of the court below affirmed at the cost of appellant.