Case Name: Marguerite BOSTICK, Appellant, v. Willie BOSTICK, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1960-09-27
Citations: 163 A.2d 817
Docket Number: No. 2611
Parties: Marguerite BOSTICK, Appellant, v. Willie BOSTICK, Appellee.
Judges: Before ROVER, Chief Judge, HOOD, Associate Judge, and CAYTON (Chief' Judge, retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11-776 (b).
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 163
Pages: 817–817

Head Matter:
Marguerite BOSTICK, Appellant, v. Willie BOSTICK, Appellee.
No. 2611.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Aug. 15, 1960.
Decided Sept. 27, 1960.
John D. Fauntleroy, Washington, D. C.,. for appellant.
John S. Yodice, Washington, D. C., with whom Philip F. Herrick, Washington, D„ C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, HOOD, Associate Judge, and CAYTON (Chief' Judge, retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11-776 (b).

Opinion:
ROVER, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Domestic Relations Branch granting appel-lee a limited divorce from his wife for cruelty inflicted upon him. Code 1951, § 16-403.
Appellant's main contention on appeal is that the court erred in making, certain findings of fact. There is no doubt that the evidence was conflicting, but as the trial court had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their demeanor we do not feel that we, as a reviewing court,, would be justified in reversing its findings.. We need cite no authority to point out that we have long held that to be a settled principle of appellate review.
As to the court's application of law based upon its findings of fact we perceive-no error. False accusations of adultery, maliciously made without probable cause or reasonable grounds for belief, and producing the requisite degree of anguish, suffering and danger to health constitute-sufficient cause to warrant the award of a limited divorce for cruelty.
Affirmed.
. Holt v. Holt, 64 App.D.C. 280, 77 F.2d 538; Simmons v. Simmons, D.C.Mun.App., 140 A.2d 186; Scott v. Scott, D.C. Mun.App., 137 A.2d 722. See also. Annotation, 143 A.L.R. 623.