Case ID: md_137/html/0691-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stockbridge, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES M. HEANY vs. MARY L. HEANY.
    
      Divorce — Evidence.
    While slight evidence in corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony in a suit for divorce is sufficient, the conclusion of the trial judge, who had all the witnesses before him and took their testimony in open court, will not be reversed unless he was clearly wrong.
    Evidence held sufficient to show abandonment of the wife by the husband, and insufficient to show abandonment of the husband by the wife.
    
      Decided June 16, 1920.
    
    Appeal from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City (Dobler, J.).
    The cause was argued before Boyd, C. J., Briscoe, Thomas, Pattison, Hrner, Stookbridge, and Adkins, JJ.
    
    
      John G. Kump, for the appellant.
    
      D. Q. McIntosh, for the appellee.
   Stockbridge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the decree below, appellant to pay the costs.