Opinion
Decided February 1st, 1924.
Divorce — Adultery — Recrimination.
Testimony of domestic servants, on an issue of adultery, is to be received with caution.
On an issue as to acts of cruelty by plaintiff, suing for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery, held that, in view of testimony offered by him tending to show absence of complaint by her of such acts on his part, the fact that she did complain thereof to her mother was admissible, though the substance of such complaint could not be taken as true against plaintiff.
Defendant having sought to place, on expressions used by plaintiff in a letter, the construction most favorable to her contention, it was proper to allow plaintiff to testify as to what was in his mind when he wrote them.
In a suit on a ground justifying an absolute divorce, the defendant cannot plead as a bar in recrimination conduct by plaintiff constituting a ground merely for limited divorce.
While opportunity to commit adultery is not alone sufficient to justify a finding of its commission, in the absence of evidence of disposition to commit it, such disposition may be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.
Decided February 1st, 1924.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (THOMAS, C.J., and FORSYTHE, J.).
Bill by Frank D. Pryor against Margaret S. Pryor. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The cause was argued before BOYD, C.J., BRISCOE, PATTISON, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, ADKINS, and OFFUTT, JJ.
Edgar Allan Poe and Ridgely P. Melvin for the appellant.
William L. Marbury and Nicholas H. Green, with whom were Marbury, Gosnell Williams on the brief, for the appellee.
UNREPORTED CASE.