Case ID: nj-eq_102/html/0337-01.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

Julia L. Taylor, respondent, v. Edward Jay Taylor, appellant.
    [Decided February 6th, 1928.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll, who filed the following opinion:
    “The complainant and defendant were married on March 9th, 1926. Each had been divorced previously. The complainant had divorced her husband in October, 1925. The defendant’s first wife had divorced him for extreme cruelty, and his second wife died in August, 1925.
    “The defendant insists that he had intercourse with his present wife on several occasions prior to their marriage during October, 1925. On April 16th, 1926, she was operated on at the Atlantic City Hospital and her ovarian tubes, appendix and right ovary removed. That the cause of her condition was a gonorrheal infection. She testified she never had had gonorrhea prior to her marriage with Taylor, and that intercourse with him had infected her.
    “Taylor admitted having gonorrhea about twenty-five years ago; that he had been entirely cured; that he had no evidence of any recurrence thereof until April 14th, 1926; that he then had gonorrhea and had been treated therefor.
    “Much expert testimony has been given upon this disease, its effect, its recurrence, and the possibility of an absolute cure.’ There also was testimony of cruel treatment by him of her while she was at the hospital. Upon leaving the hospital she did not return to her husband, and has since lived apart.
    “Prior to her marriage the complainant was employed in governmental service as a clerk at a salary of $1,500 per annum. She is now in perfect health. Taylor refrained from giving any details as to his financial standing.
    
      “I will advise an allowance of $20 per week and a counsel fee of $100.”
    
      Messrs. Gole & Gole, for the respondent.
    
      Mr. William Gharllon, for the appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chiee-Justige, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisoi-i, Black, Katzenbaci-i, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van' Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.