Settle v. Settle

Adams County Court of Common Pleas

Settle v. Settle

59 Pa. D. & C.2d 531, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 309

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County

DecidedOctober 13, 1972

Docketno. 10

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Pa. D. & C.2d 531 (Settle v. Settle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Settle v. Settle, 59 Pa. D. & C.2d 531, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 309 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MacPHAIL, P. J.,

In this action for divorce, there are references by plaintiff to incidents which took place in the presence of others. None of these witnesses were called to testify and their absence was not explained.

While a divorce may be made out on the uncorroborated testimony of plaintiff, where incidents occur in the presence of others it is essential that those parties [532]*532be called as witnesses or their absence explained: Book v. Book, 9 Adams 38 (1967), and Moldoon v. Moldoon, 11 Adams 198 (1970). The failure to call persons as witnesses to corroborate plaintiff’s testimony as to incidents alleged to have occurred in their presence would justify the belief that the production of such evidence would prove harmful to plaintiff: Book v. Book, supra.

Without corroborating testimony, we are of the opinion that plaintiff’s case, as it now stands, is insufficient to grant a divorce to plaintiff. However, since it is possible that the defects may be cured by further proceedings before the master, we will enter an order to that effect.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, October 13, 1972, the within matter is referred back to the master for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MacPHAIL, P. J.,

In this action for divorce, there are references by plaintiff to incidents which took place in the presence of others. None of these witnesses were called to testify and their absence was not explained.

While a divorce may be made out on the uncorroborated testimony of plaintiff, where incidents occur in the presence of others it is essential that those parties [532]*532be called as witnesses or their absence explained: Book v. Book, 9 Adams 38 (1967), and Moldoon v. Moldoon, 11 Adams 198 (1970). The failure to call persons as witnesses to corroborate plaintiff’s testimony as to incidents alleged to have occurred in their presence would justify the belief that the production of such evidence would prove harmful to plaintiff: Book v. Book, supra.

Without corroborating testimony, we are of the opinion that plaintiff’s case, as it now stands, is insufficient to grant a divorce to plaintiff. However, since it is possible that the defects may be cured by further proceedings before the master, we will enter an order to that effect.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, October 13, 1972, the within matter is referred back to the master for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Pa. D. & C.2d 531, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/settle-v-settle-pactcompladams-1972.