Case ID: nh_5/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Washburn versus Rhoda Washburn.
    Upon a libel for a divorce by a husband against his wife for the cause of a dultery, evidence that the wife has sustained the character of a lewd and unchaste woman is inadmissible against her.
    And if it be alleged in the libel that she committed adultery with a particular person, the libel is not sustained by proof of adultery with any other person. Confessions of the wife that she has committed adultery with the person named in the libel are not alone sufficient to justify a divorce,
    This was a libel for a divorce. The alleged cause was adultery, committed by the said Rhoda on the 4th November, 1821, with one George Boardman-
    Felton, for the libellant.
   By the court.

It appears from the evidence in this case, that the parties were married in October, 1800 ; that since the marriage the libellee lias for some time sustained the character of a lewd and unchaste woman ; that her conduct with other men has often been very indecent ; and that she has confessed, that she committed the crime of adultery with Boardman, the person named in the libel.

The question is, whether the evidence is sufficient to support the allegation of adultery with Boardman ? Ii that allegation is not proved, there can. he no divorce der creed on this libel, whatever proof there may be of” her having committed adultery with other persons. 4 Mass. Rep. 506, Tourtelot v. Tourtelot; 3 ditto, 157. Church v. Church; 6 Johns, C. R. 347, Germond v. Germond.

The evidence adduced as to the character of the libel-lee is clearly inadmissible, and cannot be regarded.

The evidence which is produced, to prove improper conduct with other men is not evidence to prove, that she committed adultery with the person named in the libel; ■

There is then nothing to sustain the charge, hut her own confessions, and those alone are clearly insufficient. 1 Johns. C. R. 197, Betts v. Betts; 1 Mass. Rep. 346, Baxter v. Baxter; 1 Johns. Cases, 25, Doe v. Roe; 2 Burns’ Ecclesiastical L. 448; 2 Mass. Rep. 154, Holland v. Holland.