Case ID: nj-super_35/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MABEL V. WELCH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HAROLD WELCH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued July 11, 1955
    Decided July 26, 1955.
    Before Judges Clapp, Proctor and Haneman.
    
      Mr. Jade Pincus argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant.
   Pee Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an uncontested action for divorce based on extreme cruelty. The facts are set forth in the opinion of Judge Conford before whom the case was tried, Welch v. Welch, 34 N. J. Super. 197 (Ch. Div. 1955). The State has an interest in actions for divorce and in the trial of such cases, particularly when they are ex parte, the utmost care should be taken in order to determine the Iona fides of the action. Duerner v. Duerner, 142 N. J. Eq. 759, 761 (E. & A. 1948). The trial judge had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the appellant and her witnesses and consequently had a better opportunity than this court to pass upon their credibility. After examining the record and considering the reasons given by the trial judge for not accepting the truthfulness of some of petitioner’s testimony, we are not disposed to disturb his finding that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action. See Rains v. Rains, 127 N. J. Eq. 328, 332 (E. & A. 1940).

' Affirmed.