Opinion
09-25-1886
MCKEAN v. MCKEAN.
C. G. Garrison, for petitioner. J. M. E. Hildredth, for defendant.
On petition for divorce.
C. G. Garrison, for petitioner.
J. M. E. Hildredth, for defendant.
BIRD, V. C. Mrs. M. filed her petition for divorce upon the ground of desertion. The period of conjugal felicity which these parties enjoyed was measured by a few months. Mr. M. then left for Virginia, his wife and child remaining in New Jersey. He sent her a few dollars on three or four occasions; in all, less than fifty. He then went to Baltimore, and, after being there awhile, he wrote Mrs. M. to come to him, and sent her money for that purpose. They remained in Baltimore a short time, when she returned to her parents in New Jersey. To this period there is some uncertainty as to the true relations between them, except as to the charge by the wife that Mr. M. frequently accused her of infidelity. But after her return to her parents he called on her, and had a private interview with her. This was in November, 1882. During this interview he asked her for her engagement ring, and promised her, upon his honor, to return it to her. He did not return it. He left her then, and took the ring with him. He says that he told her she could have it again if she would live with him. She says that he took and kept itwithout any qualification whatever. In my judgment this act of the husband in taking this ring, and carrying it away, without any subsequent efforts at reconciliation, is most ample proof of a determination to separate himself from his wife, and to desert her, unless it is made to appear that she was first in fault, and had taken some step to sever the marital relation. I find no such fault in her conduct, although not in all respects of the highest rectitude. Why did the husband want a private interview? He asked her father for such interview. I conclude it was for the sole purpose of securing the engagement ring, and of thus proving to her the entire absence of all affection or regard. Now, in addition, see how this view is sustained by his previous conduct. He accused her repeatedly of infidelity, without the slightest proof. He repeated this charge to his and her neighbors and friends. He wrote her a vile and most insulting letter, in which the charge was again made. But now he says he loves her, and is willing and anxious to live with her as his wife. This is profession, but I am satisfied without genuine repentance. He never has gone to his wife, and offered to restore the engagement ring, nor has he ever withdrawn the foul charges made both to her face and her friends. I need not go further.
I will advise a decree according to the prayer of the petitioner, with costs.