Case ID: ny-st-rep_57/html/0868-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J. Barnard. P. J., (dissenting.)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

General Term, Second Department.
    Filed December 1, 1893.
    Edward A. Anderson, Resp’t, v. Anna Anderson, App’lt.
    Appeal from special term.
    
      William J. Oarr, for app’lt; Gharles J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

The only questions being of fact, and the trial judge having seen the witnesses and personally heard the testimony, a very strong preponderance of evidence against the decisions would be required to enable us to interfere upon appeal. We do not think it can be said that the judgement is unsupported by any testimony. The trial judge believed the evidence of the plaintiff, and we can not say he was wrong in so doing. The judgment does not reflect upon the appellant, who was not a party to the duress. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Dykman, J., concurs.

Barnard. P. J., (dissenting.)

The parties were married on the 18th of October, 1883. The papers show that the. plaintiff was the putative father of an illegitimate child to be born of the defendant. The parties, and the families of the parlies, were both Roman Catholics. The defendant made her condition know to the priest, and he saw the plaintiff. He denied his offense, and the priest told him that the father and brother of the girl were resolute, fierce men, who would avenge the destruction of her honor. Subsequently, the plaintiff confessed his guilt to the priest, and said he was willing to marry the defendant and make the child legitimate, but that he would not live with her. They were married. The proof of threats is very 'slight, and is not unusual in cases similar to the one under consideration. There is apparent no real threat which was at all likely to result in violence. Passionate words would be natural, where the social wrong was so great, from father and brother, The consent was at last given from a sense of duty, and all threats defied beyond legitimizing the unborn child. The lapse of time is so great that equity should not sever the bond. It was over eight years after the marriage that the complaint was made. The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.