Opinion
[Nos. 67, 68, October Term, 1935.]
Decided January 16th, 1936.
Divorce — Abandonment — Uncorroborated Testimony — Counsel Fee — Mode of Application.
That frequent quarrels occurred between the husband and wife did not justify her in leaving him, there being no evidence that the wife's health or personal safety was endangered.
Testimony by the wife as to excessive sexual demands by the husband, if entirely uncorroborated, was insufficient to show justification for her leaving him.
Although the wife's testimony charging excessive sexual demands by the husband was insufficient, because uncorroborated, to show justification for her leaving him, he was not entitled to relief by way of divorce under his cross-bill, so long as he failed to deny the wife's charge.
The fact that the husband, in buying property, acquired it subject to a nominal ground rent, in order to defeat the wife's rights therein, could not be the subject of relief in a divorce case, the court having, in such a case, no power to dispose of the property rights of either of the parties.
An application for an additional counsel fee, by the wife suing for divorce, should be by petition, if not prayed for by the bill or answer, on which petition there should be an order, with an opportunity to the opposing party to be heard.
The refusal of an additional counsel fee to the wife, in a divorce proceeding, held not to be the subject of appeal, in view of the fact that the application was made in open court and not by petition, and there was no order granting or refusing the application.
Decided January 16th, 1936.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, In Equity (DUNCAN, J.).
Bill by Hattie M. Waltrick against Guy W. Waltrick, praying a divorce a mensa et thoro, to which defendant filed a cross-bill asking similar relief. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's bill, and granting the relief prayed in the cross-bill, plaintiff appeals (No. 67) and plaintiff also appeals from the refusal to grant her an additional counsel fee (No. 68). Decree in No. 67 affirmed in part and reversed in part. Appeal in No. 68 dismissed.
The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER. OFFUTT, SLOAN, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Stuart M. Yeatman, for the appellant.
James C.L. Anderson, for the appellee.
Unreported cases.