Summary
In Blum v. Blum, 140 Pa. Super. 72, 13 A.2d 118 (1940), this court recognized that while evidence relating to cruel and barbarous treatment may not be sufficient to sustain a divorce on that ground, the evidence may be considered in connection with a charge of indignities.
Summary of this case from Boniewicz v. BoniewiczOpinion
April 24, 1940.
May 1, 1940.
Divorce — Evidence — Cruel and barbarous treatment — Indignities to the person.
Evidence relating to cruel and barbarous treatment, although not sufficient to sustain a divorce on that ground, may be considered in connection with a charge of indignities to the person.
Appeal, No. 124, April T., 1940, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1939, No. 122, in case of Bernard Blum v. Diana Blum.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, RHODES and HIRT, JJ. Decree affirmed.
Divorce proceeding. Before MARSHALL, J., without a jury.
Decree entered granting a divorce on ground of indignities to the person. Respondent wife appealed.
Error assigned was the decree of the court below.
William J. Graham, with him Clyde P. Bailey, for appellant. John Duggan, Jr., with him Thomas E. Thornton, for appellee.
Argued April 24, 1940.
The learned judge of the court below, who heard this case, was of opinion that the evidence justified a decree of divorce on the ground of indignities to the person. Our review of the testimony leads us to the same conclusion. The evidence relating to cruel and barbarous treatment, while not sufficient to sustain a divorce on that ground, may be considered in connection with the charge of indignities to the person. The testimony of the respondent herself established the untrustworthiness and unreliability of her evidence.
Decree affirmed.