Case Name: Harry SILVERMAN, Appellant, v. Esther SILVERMAN, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1960-07-29
Citations: 162 A.2d 773
Docket Number: No. 2617
Parties: Harry SILVERMAN, Appellant, v. Esther SILVERMAN, Appellee.
Judges: Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 162
Pages: 773–776

Head Matter:
Harry SILVERMAN, Appellant, v. Esther SILVERMAN, Appellee.
No. 2617.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued July 11, 1960.
Decided July 29, 1960.
Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C., with whom Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
QUINN, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing appellant's uncontested suit for absolute divorce on the grounds of desertion. While several errors are-alleged, we will deal with only two of them. The first relates to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a divorce based upon uncontradicted testimony. After considering the entire record, we hold that there is no merit to this contention.
The other error alleging personal bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge, gives us concern. While we do not think it would serve any useful purpose to set forth in detail the colloquy between the trial judge, appellant and his counsel, the dissenting opinion, by its reference to certain portions thereof, requires that full clarification be provided by quoting the remarks in context.
It goes without saying that every judge should exercise self-restraint and preserve an atmosphere of impartiality. As the United States Court of Appeals for this circuit stated: "Mild expressions of feeling are as hard to avoid as the feeling itself. But a right to be tried by a judge who is reasonably free from bias is a part of the fundamental right to a fair trial." We have no alternative but to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. This is indeed unfortunate because the result, absent bias, was probably correct.
Reversed with instructions to grant a. new trial.
. See attached appendix.
. Whitaker v. McLean, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 259, 118 F.2d 596.