Case ID: ny-super-ct_26/html/0719-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Robertson, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter R. Strong, plaintiff, respondent, vs. Mary E. Strong, defendant, appellant.
    1. Every thing should be excluded from issues to be tried, in an action for a divorce, except "what will affect the decision. Both parties are bound to point out the particular circumstances intended to be established, with reasonable precision as to time and place, as well as person. Therefore an issue, whether the plaintiff was guilty of adultery at any time, generally, before the commencement of the action, with a person mentioned in the defendant’s answer, should not be included among those to be tried, where there is no reference in the allegation in the answer of the commission of such adultery, to either time or locality by which to identify the offense charged.
    2. That is not one of “ the facts contested by the pleadings ” in the action, which the statute authorizes to be tried as an issue.
    (Before Robertson, Ch. J., and Barbour and McCunn, JJ.)
    Heard May 16, 1865.
    Appeal from an order settling additional issues in an action for a divorce on the ground of' adultery.
    
      E. T. Gerry, for the defendant, appellant.
    
      EL. A. Gram, for the plaintiff, respondent.
   Robertson, Ch. J.

The appeal in this case presents the question whether the learned justice who settled the issues was warranted in refusing to permit an issue whether the plaintiff was guilty of adultery, at any time before the commencement of this action, with the person mentioned in the defendant’s supplemental answer, to be tried at the same time with the others. It is very evident that the jurors who are to try such issue might answer that question in the. affirmative, without at all agreeing as to the occasion of the offense. No issues ought properly to be tried except what will affect the decision; and both parties are bound to point out, with reasonable pre- . cisión, the particular circumstances intended to be established, by time and place as well as person. The statute, as well as the authorities, require this. (Codd v. Codd, 2 John. Ch. 224. Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige, 109. Bokel v. Bokel, 3 Edw. 376. 2 Barb. Ch. 256.) The other issues in the case are fully as wide as the defendant was entitled to. The 12th' and 13th of such issues cover all the time between the first of September, -1861, and the first of May, 1864, and every where in the city of New York; the 14th covers all the time from the first of May, 1864, to the 16th of January last, and the same area of locality. Such issues correspond with the allegations in such answer. There is no allegation in such answer, of a commission of the offense named in such rejected issue, with the party, therein named, except generally, without reference to time or locality. It consequently is not one of “ the facts contested by the pleadings ” in this action, which the statute authorizes to be tried as an issue. (2 B. 8. § 145.)

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.