
    EDITH W. ROBBINS
      vs. ERNEST A. ROBBINS, JR.
    Divorce: when granted; adultery; proof; inferences.
    
    The marriage relation is not to be disturbed for any but the gravest reasons, and then only upon such state of facts as show to the entire satisfaction of the Court, that it is impossible for the duties of married life to be discharged.
    On a bill for a divorce on the ground of adultery, the burden cf proof is upon the plaintiff, and the evidence must establish affirmatively that adultery was actually committed; while direct proof is not required, yet where it is sought to establish the fact from circumstantial evidence, the evidence must lead to the conclusion of guilt as a necessary consequence by a fair inference.
    The circumstances, when reviewed together, must be incompatible with innocence; and if reasonably capable of two interpretations, that one which favors innocence will be adopted.
    Evidence of a certain malady contracted by one of the parties is not necessarily conclusive proof that such party had been guilty of adultery.
    
      Decided February 2nd, 1911.
    
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Dobeee, J.).
    The cause was argued before Boyd, C. J., Briscoe, Pearce, Schmucker, Pattison and Urner, JJ.
    
      Edgar Allan Poe, for the appellant.
    
      John E. Semmes, Jr., and Jesse N. Bowen, for the appellee.
    
      
      Beferenee to this case was accidently omitted from 115 Md., where it should have appeared.
    
   Briscoe, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.  