The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-06-17

1883 They were all from Fox, and their
contents covered two hundred aud fifty
printed pages
MADE THE cHANcELLoR TIRED.
The Chancellor read them all and
makes this comment on them
The letters without exception abound
in expressions Of an intense sexual love,
so commonplace, monotonous and devoid
OF piquancy as TO make their examina-
ton most burdeusome task They re-
Ter 20 incidents and conversations and
express desires which, If founded in fact,
prove an unrestrained intimacy between
the writer and the defendant. He speaks
among other things Of his difficulty iu
keeping away from her dear sweet lips.'
OF his Starving for her; Of their bliss
together; Of his longing TO call her his
own; OF bis visits TO her aJ her home
and of her visits TO him at the postofii ce
after IL was closed for the night; OF MS
devouring' her with his love; OF their
narrow escapes from her husbands de-
lection. OF uis fear that their love may
be discovered and that she may suffer Ia
consequence"
In her testimony Mrs. Sickle admitted
that Fox visited her, but denies the grave
charge made In the bill. She declares
that her conduct was not improper and
she contents herself with the uncertain
denial OF improprieties. The Chancellor
says that aside from the letters there is
no proof Of her crime, only an impr1dent
friendship with Fox.
MRS SICKLE ALLEGES CONSPIRACY.
Taken with the letters, however, the
proofs present a very different case. IL
the letters are parcels of correspond
ence between the defendant and Fox and
are to be regarded as admission of con-
duct and desire, the crime Is established.
The defendant raises the point that her
husband had copspired with Fox, but the
Chancellor does not think that there was
conspiracy to get rid of the woman. They
were letters Of q lover which she bad Sc
cretly received and were genuine.
The defendant was addicted to the use
of morphine, and IL is insisted that the
complainant for years tried TO get rid OF
Ter. He openly declared he was willing
to give five hundred dollars for evidence
of her misconduct. He invited Fox to
visit his house and neglected his wife.
He did not show that he was much in
jured in the spiritless accounting with
Fox, who had dishonored him.
1t is not proved that he conspired with
Fox 10 falsely convict his wife. 1t is at
least shown that he connived at her So
duction. There was adiyorce proceeding
in Is s5 which never reached termination.
Since then they have lived unhappily. At
that time he offered $500 for evidence 10
convict his wife. In view Of the COM
plainanJs past suspicion he was bound to
watch her and his careless neglect 10 do
so and TO discover and prevent her re-
lation with Fox amount TO a passive con-
nivance which should preclude him from
obtaining a decree If divorce.
IL is observed, however, in this case
that the complainant did not know that
his wife had ever been really guilty; he
merely suspected 1t and eventually so far
abandoned his suspicion as to live for
years with her as her husband. and the
complainant soiemnly AYERS that he
never, previous to finding the letters, sus-
pected unlawful or improper relations be-
tween her and Fcx. The Chancellor
says that considering all circumstances
Of divorce.
An exception has been taken to the
Court of Errors and Appeals on the
ground that the evidence was not corrob-
orative. Pending a decision OF the Ap-
pellate Court the alimony continues.