Court Opinion

ID: 9697882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:35:41.742391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:36.130037
License: Public Domain

Henderson, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
I do not agree with the decision in this case, either on the law or the facts, and think it may be worthwhile to state my views. The opinion discards the testimony of the niece as to statements made by the wife out of the husband’s presence as being without probative force, although it came in without objection, on the ground that it was hearsay. This seems *204to me to be contrary to the accepted rule that evidence admitted without objection is legally acceptable. Cf. Weil v. Free State Oil Co. of Md., 200 Md. 62, 70, and Sentman v. Gamble, 69 Md. 293, 305. In Bowersox v. Bowersox, 157 Md. 476, the case was uncontested and based wholly upon testimony taken before an examiner; in Misner v. Misner, 211 Md. 398, the testimony of a witness as to what she “understood” as to the relations of the parties, from an undisclosed source, was held to be properly excluded, over objection. In neither case was there any other corroborative evidence. Indeed, there was cogent evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, statements made to an attending physician have been held to be admissible, and relied on as corroborative. Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Md. 324; Brennecke v. Brennecke, 213 Md. 447. Once evidence of this kind is admitted in a trial before a chancellor who sees and hears the witnesses, it seems to me that its weight is for the trier of facts. If we are to weigh the evidence, I think a statement made to a confidant and close relative at a time when the constructive desertion was taking place, and long before any litigation was pending or in contemplation, should be entitled to at least some consideration.
But there was further corroborative evidence in the instant case. The niece testified that the husband' was present on at least one occasion when the wife charged him with constructive desertion, and the fact that he stood mute may be considered as an admission. The opinion recognizes the rule but finds it unlikely that a husband would feel called upon to deny the charge. I think that is an unwarranted assumption. Not only do I think the trial court properly drew the inference that he acquiesced in the charge, but it is shown that he admitted the fact of a cessation of marital relations, in his answer, although he denied that it was his fault. Moreover, he did not take the stand to deny the sworn testimony of the wife and the niece. Another corroborative circumstance is the fact that in his answer he admitted the charge in the amended bill that he had committed adultery previous to' the alleged constructive desertion, although he alleged that it was condoned unconditionally. If true, the fact of adultery *205would tend to show a disinclination toward his wife, and a disregard of marital obligations. Cf. Scheinin v. Scheinin, 200 Md. 282, 292. There is also corroborative testimony that the wife moved into another room when she found that her repeated efforts to resume the marital intercourse were repulsed. From the evidential point of view, I think there was enough testimony to corroborate the wife’s version of the desertion.
We have repeatedly held that corroboration may be slight in a contested case, and that it need not go to every detail. Apparently the opinion in the instant case would impose a higher standard of proof, on the ground that the husband did not take the stand, and that the case was in fact uncontested. I think this is an unwarranted assumption. The fact that there was an agreement at or during the trial as to the amount of alimony is not significant or unusual, and is overbalanced by the fact that he took an appeal from the decree. So far from inferring that his failure to testify was collusive, I would simply draw the inference that he thought he would have a better chance of reversal by standing on the weakness of the plaintiff’s case than the strength of his own. If he had taken the stand and denied the charge, and the Chancellor had disbelieved him, I assume that this Court would have applied a different standard of proof, simply because of the contest.
I think the instant case is stronger than Kelsey v. Kelsey, supra, where we reversed the chancellor’s finding. If evidence like that in the instant case has no probative value, I think the ground of constructive desertion is virtually deleted from the statute, since the offense can only be proved by the testimony of the injured party and such corroborative circumstances, including statements and admissions of the parties, as may come to the attention of third parties. Cf. Lent v. Lent, 202 Md. 240, 244. The weight of such circumstances may be safely left to the sound discretion of the Chancellor.
The remand in the instant case poses other questions. If the wife is able to prove adultery on the part of the husband, by evidence other than his admission of record, I should suppose that her resumption of marital relations after knowledge *206of the offense would amount to condonation in law, and that it would be unnecessary to prove a condition in fact. In Cullotta v. Cullotta, 193 Md. 374, 383, it was, said that “Con-donation is, of course, forgiveness with an implied condition that the marital offenses shall not be repeated and that the party offended shall be treated with conjugal kindness and on breach of this condition, the right to remedy for former injuries revives” (citing cases). But the only breach of condition alleged is constructive desertion, proof of which was found lacking in the present appeal. While it is true that the Chancellor’s decision rendered proof of adultery unnecessary, counsel for the wife did not suggest that she had any additional testimony on the vital point of constructive desertion relied on to revive the former offense. It is not clear to me whether this Court takes the view that proof of a breach of the implied condition requires less corroboration than proof of the same fact as a ground for divorce, or whether the case is remanded to permit a retrial of the same issue, with the vague hope that other and further evidence may in some way be produced. In either event, I should have preferred to affirm the Chancellor’s decree.