Appeal, No. 439, Oct. T., 1961, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1959, No. 676, in case of Robert Bass v. Ernestine Bass. Decree affirmed.
Harvey N. Schmidt, with him Oscar N. Gaskins, and Schmidt & Gaskins, for appellant.
J. P. Shein, with him Edwin Seave, for appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 11]
This an appeal from a decree of the court below granting a divorce to the husband on the ground of indignities.
The case involves no legal problems. The applicable principles of law have been repeated so often that it is useless to restate them. To decide this case, we must examine the record and apply the established principles of law to the evidence before us.
[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 12]
The plaintiff is a 35 year old osteopathic physician married to the 32 year old defendant since June 4, 1951. They have one child born April 4, 1954. Shortly after the marriage, the plaintiff began his studies at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathy, from which he was graduated in June, 1955. After serving a year as an interne at Metropolitan Hospital, he began the practice of osteopathy in July, 1956. The parties separated in September, 1959. From these bare facts, on immediately suspects that this case may fit into the all too familiar pattern of the wife who slaves, saves and sacrifices so that the man whom she loves may realize his highest potentialities, and when the fruits of her efforts are realized, the husband rejects her and bestows them upon another.
This case seems different. The doctor was a poor boy, and for a time he received financial assistance from his wife. But from the beginning of his college career, she did little to encourage him. When he started college, he was employed full time as a night postal employe. When the time came that he was unable to continue his full-time employment and also carry on his exacting college work, his wife attempted in numerous ways to discourage him and to prevent the continuation of his college work. His wife taunted him with, "Why didn't you take care of your wife the way other men do?" He was "a stupid bastard," and "no damn good." When they were unable to meet the expenses of their apartment and had to move to other quarters, she left him and stayed away for three months. He took her back; she left again; again he took her back. She became pregnant and urged an abortion, and when the plaintiff refused, she left him again. He took her back again, and then, in addition to his college work and a part-time job, he washed her clothes, made the meals and looked after her. After the child was born, she
[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 13]
said she was "through" and left again, ...