Appeal, No. 217, Oct. T., 1956, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1954, No. 8186, in case of Katherine Rosen v. Edward Rosen. Decree affirmed.
Joseph Matusow, with him Samuel J. Marks, for appellant.
Colbert C. McClain, with him John J. King, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ. (hirt, and Gunther, JJ., absent).
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 104]
A complaint in divorce was filed by the wife, Katherine Rosen, on the grounds of indignities to her person. The master appointed to hear the testimony recommended that a decree in divorce be granted and the court below entered a final decree after dismissing exceptions to the master's report. It is from this decree that the defendant appeals, contending that the plaintiff's testimony was incoherent, contradictory, not corroborated by witnesses and not worthy of belief.
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 105]
Both parties were born in Russia, the wife on April 5, 1905 and the husband on March 28, 1902. She is a citizen of the United States, having come to the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania when only two and onehalf years old, but he is not a United States citizen although he has been a resident of Philadelphia since 1925.
The appellee is in the hotel business, owning, leasing, operating and managing hotels in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Prior to the marriage, appellant was a pants maker, jewelry salesman and a room-clerk in hotels owned by Mrs. Rosen. He was so employed at the time of the marriage and continued to work for her after the marriage.
It would serve no useful purpose to set forth in detail the testimony, spread over 818 typewritten pages, which we have examined carefully as we are required to do. Suffice it to say that seldom is as much extremely vulgar, obscene and filthy language put into a record. In addition to the use of such language toward her, the appellee testified that the appellant abused her physically on numerous occasions, gambled and drank excessively.
The only question involved is the credibility of the witnesses. Appellant does not contend that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the decree if the testimony ...