Hill v. Hill

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 1
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 140

Syllabus

<p>Divorce — Libel—Cruelty—Indignities to the person — Evidence.</p> <p>1. On a libel by a husband against his wifá for divorce alleging cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person, where it appears that the parties had lived in another state, had there separated after a divorce a mensa et thoro, and thereafter became reconciled in Pennsylvania, evidence offered by the wife as to cruelty to herself and indignities to her person both in the other state and in Pennsylvania after the reconciliation, is admissible, where it appears that the libelant had testified as to the respondent’s conduct in both states, and the evidence tends to show a connected course of conduct in both states inconsistent with the assertion of the complainant that his wife was the aggressor, and he the injured party.</p> <p>2. In such a case where the burden of the libelant’s charges were not physical injuries inflicted upon himself, but merely the respondent’s extravagance and her statements against himself, he will not be granted a divorce where the evidence shows that he himself had inflicted upon his wife such injuries as would be ground for a divorce against himself for cruelty and indignities to the person.</p>