Case ID: how-pr_3/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harris, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victorine Bissell, by Manuel de Puga, her next friend, vs. Edward Bissell.
    The allowance of alimony and expenses in suits for divorce or separation, is in the discretion of the court. In the case of divorce, the wife is entitled of course to the allowance, unless there is an undenied charge of adultery against her. But in a suit for separation, it must at least appear that the Plaintiff has good ground for bringing the suit.
    Where, in a suit for separation on the ground of cruel treatment, the answer on oath denied or explained the charges in the bill, so that the court could not decide upon the bill and answer that the Plaintiff had a meritorious cause of action, the motion for allowance of alimony was denied.
    
      New York Special Term,
    December, 1847.
    The bill in this cause was filed for a separation on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Plaintiff applied for alimony and for an allowance to enable her to carry on this suit.
    W. H. Meeks, for Plff.
    
    Jona. Miller, for Deft.
    
   Harris, Justice.

The allowance of alimony and expenses in suits for divorce or separation, is in the discretion of the court. But the rule which governs the court in the exercise of that discretion is very different in the two cases. If the bill is filed for a divorce, the wife is entitled, of course, to the allowance, unless there is an undenied charge of adultery against her. But when the bill is filed for a separation, so far from being a matter of course to allow alimony and expenses, it must at least appear that the Plaintiff has good ground for bringing the suit.

In this case, the answer of the Defendant is put in on oath, although an answer on oath is waived by the bill. The answer denies or explains all the acts of unkindness and improper treatment set forth in the bill in such a manner as to leave the strong impression that he is the more injured party. And as the answer is entitled to the same force, as evidence, as the bill, the court cannot, upon the bill and answer merely, decide that the Plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action. This motion must therefore be denied.

A motion is also made by the Plaintiff to have issues settled for the trial of the questions at issue in this cause. There can be no objection to a reference to some suitable person for that purpose, or if it is preferred, the cause may be referred to some suitable jierson as referee to hear the proofs and allegations of the parties, and determine the matters in controversy, and report thereon to this court.