Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1958, No. 1159, in case of Edward J. King v. Eileen A. King. Decision affirmed.
Albert S. Oliensis, for appellant.
Joseph F. Lombardo, with him Alivin J. Bello, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 337]
In this case, the plaintiff-husband filed a complaint for a divorce a.v.m. on the grounds of indignities to the person and adultery. After holding several hearings the taking extensive testimony, the master recommended that the divorce be granted on the ground of indignities only. Exceptions by the defendant to this report were dismissed by the court below, and a decree of divorce entered. This appeal followed.
The parties entered into a valid common law marriage in October of 1946. They separated in February
[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 338]
of 1958. One child, Eddie, Jr., was born of this marriage. He is now 15 years of age. The husband is a partner in the ownership of two restaurant-bars, Maxine's in Philadelphia and the New Torch Club in Atlantic City, N.J. He is presently 58 years of age, and his wife is 43 years of age.
Our independent examination of the record leaves no doubt that the wife's conduct constituted indignities. Since the only question raised on this appeal is whether the husband is an innocent and injured spouse, we will just briefly discuss the wife's indignities.
The record shows that the defendant frequently called the plaintiff names of the vilest nature, often in the presence of their son. This conduct occurred with increasing frequency during the later years of the marriage. The defendant also drank to excess, often becoming intoxicated in public. As a result of her drinking she at times fell asleep with a lighted cigarette, burning pieces of furniture. There are also many incidents of defendant's indiscretions with other men.
The defendant's drinking caused the plaintiff much embarrassment. On one occasion the parties took their son to visit a priest. While there the priest closed the door, telling the defendant that he was doing so because of her breath. At Maxine's, the ...