Case Name: Robert J. SMITH, Appellant, v. Dorothy Marie SMITH, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1957-12-30
Citations: 137 A.2d 221
Docket Number: No. 2047
Parties: Robert J. SMITH, Appellant, v. Dorothy Marie SMITH, Appellee.
Judges: Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 137
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
Robert J. SMITH, Appellant, v. Dorothy Marie SMITH, Appellee.
No. 2047.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Sept. 16, 1957.
Decided Dec. 30, 1957.
Eugene J. Schubert, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Rex K. Nelson, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
ROVER, Chief Judge.
Tire wife sued her husband for maintenance (Code 1951, § 16-415). He defended on the ground that she had been guilty of adultery and accordingly had forfeited her right to support. During the trial both parties introduced evidence in an attempt to prove adultery on the part of the other. At the conclusion of all the evidence the court made the following findings:
"The defendant admits that since May 18, 1956, he has' not supported the plaintiff. The Court finds that under all the facts and circumstances of the case the defendant has failed and neglected to maintain and support the plaintiff, although able to do so.
♦ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ^
" [T]he court finds that there is not sufficient evidence or proof in this case to establish the fact that adultery was committed by either the plaintiff [appellee] or the defendant [appellant]."
An order was entered granting permanent maintenance for the wife and a counsel fee for her attorney; the husband appeals. A careful examination of the transcript of testimony convinces us that the decision was sufficiently supported by the evidence.
Counsel for appellee has filed in this court a motion for allowance of a counsel fee on appeal. This motion is denied without prejudice to the filing of such a motion in the trial court after our mandate has issued. Hobbs v. Hobbs, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 197 F.2d 412.
Affirmed.