The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-09-11
DIVORCE ETHICS.
Vice Chancellor Green on the Law of De
sertion-Separations Refused.
SDecidl to the Jeg,sey Citu Mems.

vice chancellor Green on the Law OF Oe-
neutrality-suspicious. Refused.
Special to the jersey CITY Netos.
TRENTON, Sept. II, 1s90.-In December,
1876, John D. Herold. a widower of forty
five, with five children, was married to
Julia Herold, who was then a widow
with three children. and in control of
some money, as the guardian of her chill
dren. The parties did not get along well
together, and about q year after the mar
riage the wife told her husband that she
could not and would not live longer with
him. She removed all her property and
lett the house. The husband seems not
to have tried to reconcile her to remain,
except to state that if she left he would no
longer be responsible for her.
The husband recently brought suit for
divorce from his wife on the ground of
wilful, obstinate and continued deser-
ton for three years. On the n~on-appear-
ance of the defendant, and on the report
of the master, to whom the cause was re-
ferred, a decree of divorce was entered
in favor OF the complainant. On appiica-
ton of the defendant this decree was
opened, and h vas allowed to come in
and defend. She filed an answer denying
the desertion. and by way of cross-bill al
leges desertion on the part of complain
ant for three years, and asked for q de-
SACCA Ii AlC AtFo4s III ' ASo
dismisses the bill and cross-bill with costs
of the original bill to the defendant, and
holds that when a husband, not entirely
blameless for the act, make no effort to
prevent his desertion by his wife, and ac-
quiesces in n appears satisfied with its
continuance, he is not entitled to a d.
yorce ON the ground of deSertion.
"a wife, claiming that her abandon
ment OF her home was caused by the con-
duct of her husband, must in the face of
his denial, if she seeks a divorce Oh the
grounds of desertion, sustain her claim
by the corroborative evidence of circum-
stances or of other witnesses"
Vice Chancellor Green has also decided
that Henry Brown is not entitled TO a di-
yorce from his wife, Annie Brown, on
the ground of desertion.
The parties were married in December,
1886. in Bergen county. The defendant
and her mother had lived at complain
ants house and taken charge of his in
FAINT child by q former wife. then de-
ceased. Trouble arose between tho chill
dren by the former marriage and the
wife went away, remaining one day. On
her return, it is claimed, her husband
ordered her out of the house, and she
went to a friends house. An arrange
ment was afterward made and she again
returned to the house. They continued
to quarrel until June, 1887, when the
complainant moved the wife's goods
from the house. The husband brought
suit for divorce. The Vice Chancellor
states that the case is barren of evidence
that the complainant made the advances
or concessions which a just nan
ought to have made to put an end
to the desertion, and that under
such circumstances her desertion,
however willful it may have
been, was not obstinate. He therefore
dismissed the bill with costs to the de-
| PENDANT, including a counsel fee, and
| holds that Mere declarations of a will
ingness to resume marital relations with
out any effort to put an end to a separa-
| ton are OF little weight in an action for
a divorce on the ground of desertion.
"A complainant not having manifested
| other than by declarations made in court,
| when under arrest for n%on-support, any
desire that the defendant should return
to him, but acquiescing in her absence,
is not entitled TO a divorce under the
stauute.o