Wm. J. Graham and Clyde P. Bailey, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Morris A. Mendlowitz, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Gunther, JJ.
[ 173 Pa. Super. Page 224]
In this divorce action the wife plaintiff was granted a decree on the ground of indignities to the person, and the husband has appealed to this Court.
The parties were married on July 26, 1938 and lived together at various addresses in the suburbs of Pittsburgh. Plaintiff left defendant at least five times prior to the final separation on January 26, 1944. Three minor daughters live with plaintiff, and defendant supports them by order of the County Court of Allegheny County. A son died at birth.
The parties spent their honeymoon at Niagara Falls. Here begins the first of a lengthy series of incidents on which plaintiff bases her case. We recite it in detail because it is typical of the general tenor of her accusations throughout her entire testimony. It seems plaintiff had provided herself with only one pair of shoes which became dilapidated and she wanted her
[ 173 Pa. Super. Page 225]
bridegroom to buy her a new pair, which he refused to do, whereupon she borrowed a needle and thread from the proprietor of the tourist camp and repaired the ones she had. On their return home her mother-in-law lent her a pair and 'shamed' defendant into buying her a new pair.
Plaintiff testified further that defendant was not congenial and did not display the proper hospitality when her girl friends visited her but instead retired to his room; that he spent time with men friends 'on the corner'; that he chided her about listening to radio soap operas which he considered 'kid stuff'; that he gambled but was close with his money where she was concerned; that he kept his money on a shelf in the clothes closet, gave her $5 a week with which to purchase food and required her to keep accounts of the family budget. Arguments would ensue over discrepancies in the budget book. Plaintiff admitted juggling the accounts in order to salvage money for her own use. Defendant would run his finger over the furniture to check on the amount of accumulated dust, but in view of plaintiff's admissions it seems his complaints about her housekeeping were not entirely unjustified. When the parties shopped together defendant paid for the articles purchased and took the change. She complained that he was not personally immaculate but that he wanted his clothes to be clean so she had to wash them every day. He furnished her with insufficient recreation, she testified, and insisted that she return home immediately after going to the movies with her mother.
On one occasion he 'spanked' her when she took money from the cash box to buy a maternity coat. The struggle continued to the stairs outside their apartment and defendant held her by the hair until the ...