Appeal, No. 422, Oct. T., 1960, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1955, No. 4655, in case of W. Harlan Henszey v. Rowena Wilhite Henszey. Decree affirmed.
Harry T. Devine, with him Scott and Devine, for appellant.
Raymond J. Bradley, with him Howard Gittis, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 378]
This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting a divorce in favor of W. Harlan Henszey, the appellee husband, and against Rowena Wilhite Henszey, the appellant wife, on the ground of indignities. The parties were married in 1908. The marriage has continued for fifty-two years or more. The husband was 78 years of age and the wife 71 years of age at the time of the hearing. There were seven children born of this marriage, six of whom are still living. At the hearing
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 379]
before the master three of the children testified on behalf of the father and tow on behalf of the wife appellant. The master recommended that a divorce be granted, which recommendation was affirmed by the lower court.
This Court on appeal must consider the evidence de novo, pass on its weight and on the credibility of the witnesses and reach an independent conclusion upon on the merits. Rankin v. Rankin, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 414, 124 A.2d 639 (1956). However, where the credibility of the various witnesses is one of the key questions to be solved as in the instant case, where the opposing parties have given testimony which is diametrically opposed, the judgment of the master on this question of credibility is entitled to the fullest consideration. Rosen v. Rosen, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 103, 128 A.2d 111 (1956). After a review of the entire record the determinations by the master as to where lies the more credible evidence is found to be reasonable and supported by the record.
This Court has stated many times that it is impossible to lay down a general rule for the determination of what constitutes such indignities which would render the innocent and injured party's condition intolerable and his life burdensome. It has been held however that indignities may consist of vulgarity, unmerited reproach, habitual contumely, studied neglect, intentional incivility, manifest disdain, abusive language, malignant ridicule and any other plain manifestation of settled hate and estrangement. Trueg v. Trueg, 190 Pa. Superior Ct. 78, 151 A.2d 786 (1959). The conduct on the part of the wife which would constitute such an indignity and which is supported by the record is as follows: Defendant continually neglected her household duties, maintained the home in a filthy condition, failed to provide family with meals, so much so that one of the daughters required medical attention
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 380]
for malnutrition. Defendant slept late every day and often allowing decaying food to remain in the refrigerator which caused terrible odors throughout the house. Wasson v. ...