Case ID: nj-eq_91/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Helen Clarke Matthews, petitioner-appellant, v. Clarence D. Matthews, defendant-respondent.
    [Submitted July 7th, 1919.
    Decided November 17th, 1919.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, whose opinion is reported in 107 Atl. Rep. 480.
    
    
      Messrs. Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Oscar B. Redraw, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The suit was for divorce on account of alleged desertion. Vice-Chancellor Backes, who heard the case below, after examination of the evidence, came to the conclusion that petitioner had not shown that she was entitled, under the rules laid down in this state, to the divorce prayed; and, accordingly, dismissed the petition. Our own examination leads to a similar result. The decree of the court of chancery is therefore affirmed. .

For affirmance — Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Williams, Ackerson — 7.

For reversal — Bergen, Minturn, White, Heppenheimer, Taylor — 5.