Case ID: nj-eq_87/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles E. Drake, petitioner-respondent, v. Elizabeth Drake, defendant-appellant.
    [Submitted November Term, 1916.
    Decided March 5th, 1917.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Advisory Master Magie, who filed the following opinion:
    “Notwithstanding the denials of the defendant and Bellott, the evidence satisfies me'that she is guilty as charged by the petitioner. .
    “This conclusion would ordinarily result in advising the decree nisi in favor of the petitioner, but, under the provision of section 28 of the Divorce, law, such a decree cannot be advised if the charges made by the defendant at her cross-petition are sustained by sufficient evidence.
    “The evidence on that subject is, in my judgment, not satisfactory. It is encountered by the denials by petitioner of the charge. I would be unwilling to, advise a decree thereon.
    “The result of all is, that petitioner is entitled to a decree nisi and I will so advise.”
    
      Mr. George 17. V. Moy, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Robert N. Crane, for the respondent.
   Pee Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Advisory Master Magie.

For mffk-mmce—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, • Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisci-i, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner—12. ■

For reversal—None.