Court Opinion

ID: 9716460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:40:30.349623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:45.763446
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Woobside, J.:
I disagree with the majority that the court below should be reversed, and this divorce refused.
The determination of what occurred during the married life of the parties depends largely upon the credibility of the witnesses. The master’s findings and conclusions should be given the fullest consideration by us because of his opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses. Megoulas v. Megoulas, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 510, 512, 72 A. 2d 598 (1950); Sharpe v. Sharpe, 177 Pa. Superior Ct. 76, 81, 110 A. 2d 804 (1955).
The master believed the testimony of the plaintiff, and the court below, after a thorough consideration of the matter as evidenced by its opinion, approved the master’s report. The plaintiff’s testimony was substantiated by a number of witnesses. The wife called only one witness, who added little to her case.
It seems to me that the majority have given little or no weight to the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and have given full credence to the tésti*302mony of the wife-defendant. When the question is one of credibility the judges who have not had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses are in a much less favorable position to determine the truth than the master who observed the witnesses as they were testifying.
The evidence indicates that the husband-plaintiff was subjected to obscene and vulgar abuse; that the wife made false charges of immorality against her husband’s family, called his sisters “whores”, and his mother a “witch”; that through her misconduct and abuse of his friends she frequently embarrassed him before them. There was evidence that she deliberately failed to give him messages from his union and his employer, and that she failed to relay messages to his employers about his illness, with resultant impairment of his position with the union and with his employer. There is evidence that she failed to prepare his meals on many occasions.
The plaintiff testified that he was steward of his union, and that every time he attended a meeting or engaged in any picketing his wife accused him of infidelity and used abusive, obscene and profane language toward him. He testified that she would nag him during the night as a result of which he could not sleep, became nervous, lost weight; all of which had an adverse effect upon his health and employment.
On one occasion when the parties had been to a motion picture show and he wanted to stop at the Eoosevelt Hotel for a beer, she, insisting upon going home, swore and created a commotion on the street which attracted attention. Then' after he took her home in a cab and- went down the street for a beer, she said that the only reason he took her home was so that he could go. out with another woman.
*303There is evidence that because of the wife’s patent unfriendliness and unfair accusations, plaintiff’s friends of many years standing discontinued calling at his home, and that because of the abusive conduct and false accusations made against plaintiff’s family, they did not visit his home. There is evidence that when the plaintiff’s sister attempted to telephone her brother concerning the critical illness of their mother, the defendant hung up the telephone and did not deliver the message.
Other witnesses corroborated the plaintiff’s testimony that his wife called him “whoremaster” and “bastard”, and that on one occasion when leaving with a fellow male employer to attend a steel worker’s convention she said, “I hope you two whoremasters get a good dose.”
Although the wife denied the husband’s accusation, nevertheless, substantiation of his charges can be found in her testimony. For example, on direct examination the defendant categorically denied the use of opprobrious language to the plaintiff, but later admitted saying to the plaintiff, when he attempted to effect a reconciliation, “Well, I don’t know. I think once a whore-master, always a whoremaster.” This is the type of language which the plaintiff and his witnesses said she used toward her husband. Although denying that she had been unfriendly to her husband’s family, she admitted referring to her mother-in-law as a “witch”.
The accusations of infidelity were continuously made by the wife over a period of many years and almost every time the plaintiff had been out of his wife’s sight. This conduct throws considerable doubt upon the defendant’s testimony, undetailed and uncorroborated, that the plaintiff frequently had lipstick on his clothing, and for a time lived with another woman.
*304I think the majority should have given greater weight to the master’s report and to the opinion of the court below, and that upon a consideration of all of the evidence we should affirm the decree granting the divorce.
Ervin, J., joins in this dissent.