W. Glenn George, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Marvin Comisky, John S. Reynolds, Lemuel B. Schofield, Philadelphia, for appellee.
HIRT, Acting P. J., and ROSS, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE and ERVIN, JJ.
[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 614]
After the parties to this divorce action were married on June 15, 1946, they resided together in Drexel Hill, Delaware County, until July 17, 1952, when the plaintiff husband moved to an apartment in Philadelphia. Five days later he filed the instant complaint in divorce alleging indignities. The case was referred to a master who, after several hearings, recommended that a divorce be granted. Defendant's exceptions to the master's report were dismissed by the court below and a decree in divorce a. v. m. entered, and the defendant took this appeal.
[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 615]
The defendant first contends that the plaintiff did not meet the venue requirement of Pa.R.C.P. 1122, 12 P.S. Appendix, which provides that the action be brought in, and only in, the county in which the plaintiff or the defendant resides. We agree with the learned court below that this contention 'can be disposed of without extended discussion'. The plaintiff testified that when he filed his complaint he was domiciled in Philadelphia. The defendant's testimony, if accepted, might support a conclusion that he was still a resident of Delaware County. However, this issue of fact was resolved in the plaintiff's favor by the master, and like the learned court below, we see no reason for reaching a different conclusion. Moreover, on the record before us, it might very well be held that the defendant had waived her right to raise the question of venue. See Chasman v. Chasman, 161 Pa. Super. 77, 53 A.2d 876.
To support his charge of indignities the plaintiff testified that the defendant made against him repeated unfounded charges of infidelity; that she accused him of having illicit relations with his stepdaughter and that she called him vile and opprobrious names, and that these and similar charges of misconduct were made 'constantly', when others were present as well as when the parties were alone. He denied that defendant had any ground upon which to base her accusations of infidelity.
Although the defendant denied that on a number of specific occasions testified to by the husband she accused him of infidelity, she did admit that 'from time to time', in the presence of her mother and aunt, she did accuse him of infidelity. She first denied making any accusations with respect to the step-daughter but later admitted discussing cussing plaintiff's 'relations' with his step-daughter by a previous marriage with a couple 'indirectly related' to the girl's mother.
[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 616]
It is, of course, well settled that continuous unfounded accusations of infidelity when accompanied by other degrading or humiliating conduct, persisted in for a sufficient length of time, make out a case of indignities. Turner v. Turner, 171 Pa. Super. 519, 89 A.2d 893; Horton v. Horton, 170 Pa. Super. 209, 85 A.2d 602. Equally well settled, however, is the proposition that charges of infidelity, though false, do not constitute indignities if the defendant's suspicions were ...