The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-05-20
FINDINGS In CHANCHRY
Patrick Monahan's Will
Held to be the Result
Of Undue Influence.
sHACLKLEToN DIVORCE CASE
Vice Chan eeller Van Fleet Dis
casses Marital Condon-
alton.
SHACLKLEToN DIVORCE CASE

TRENTON. May %, 16gl.-The May terrn
OF the Court Of Cnancery opened yester-
day. There was a large attendance Of
lawyers from all parts Of the State. 4
number Of opinions were read. among
which was one by Vice ChanceIior Van
Fleet, in the case Of Sarah shackeiton
against her husband. Joseph, for divorce.
The parties live at Railway. The hus-
bands guilt is proved, but the question =
whether all the wrongs on which the
complainant's right Of action rests nave
not been pardoned.
They were married IN 1867 and have
four children. The husband entered into
bigamous marriage in November ISL
and until April, 1883. maintained two
establishments and preserved his secret.
Then the second wife sued him for di-
voroes and a notice Of the suit came 70 the
attention OF the first wife May CO. she
accused the husband Of adultery and did
not credit his denials. Nevertheless, she
occupied his bed that night
HELD TO BE CONFORMATION.
Her suit for divorce was begun June I.
1889. and the question at issue was
whether her conduct IN remaintng with
her husband for the night Of May 81. con-
doned his offence The Chancellor held
that It did, for she knew that be COM
nitted adultery and that she could prove
1t. The opinion also deals with the uues-
ton Of marital conformation at soma
length saying that as rule the pardon
Is held TO extend only 10 such offences as
are known to the pardoninn party: that
the failurs to cut on marital relations Is
not held 50 strong evidence OF q wife's
pardon as Of a husbands because she il
to a considerable extent subject to his
viii and dependent upon him. and his
guilt is OF less consequence 10 her than
her guilt Is to him But these adran-
tages of the wife are not held to be sum
cienf in the case OF 5hackeit0n.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
In the case Of Bridget Carroll, appel
liant, and Gertrude A HRuse by heY
friend, respondent, on appeal from de-
cree Of the Orphans Court OF Essex
county. Vice Ordinary Van Fleet holds
that where the testator has made an mn
the burden OF proof rests upon the
person IN whose favor the beauest
Is made. The extent of the lnfluence.
whether powerful or slight, il wholly i'm
material. for the test Il, was it sufficient
TO destroy free agency. II it was It will
be held to De sufticient to render tho In
strument invalid
Patrick Monahan, the testater. signed =
paper on the 26th of December, 1855 under
alleged undue influence. He died on the
10Th Of the following JauuarT. Tho
cayeator is his only daughters child
whom he had often said should have
what he possessed at his death. He
had expressed an unwillipauezs 20 make
viii, IN which case the eaiid would
have gotten his estate as the Aexz Of
kin. Both his sistsr and a priest triad
10 persuade him 60 make q viii. and ne
denounced his sisters opportunities as Z
torture
The priest told him he sbouId make Z
VIII or there would be litigation at his
DEATH The deceased was in his sisters
hands and she could dominate his mind
and will with little chance ofa6etectlon;
stifie his love for the little child and have
the viii made as it was made, leaving the
estate TO hrs sister Bridget. II he bad
been LETT 10 himself he would not have
made viii. The decree Of the Orphans
Court was affirmed with costs
A SLICE FOR JACOB PEDRIcK.
Chancellor McGiu read an iuteresfIn4
opinion in the Pedrick case. This is tbs
complaint of Jacob B. Pedrick against
Alfred c. Pedrick and others. Jacob il q
bachelor sixty-three years old He lives
in Camden BY his fathers viii he was
left 900, but this sum was put into the
hands OF an executor who was restrained
from paying Jacob more than enon9h to
board and clothe him recently. The
property is now in the control Of the ad-
niin1strator of the deceased executor.
The Chancellor says that the man has led
wandering life and has shown little ap-
ritude for business. 1t is question
whether Jacob Pedrick could manage 80
large g sum as SIS. 000 for the possessioa
of which be now sues. But the Chaneel-
Tor thinks that the provisions sf the will
have not been carried out as the testatok
would have wished He directs fhas
Jacob be trusted with IS 900 on account
TO test his ability to take care Of money
In the case OF Watien Toel & G. "a ASH
bel Greller, receiver Of the North River
Construction Company, on appeal from
the determination Of the receiver who had
disallowed claim OF the complainAntz,
who allege 10 be creditors OF the con.
struction company, which Is insolvent.
| the Chancellor directs the receiver 70 pay
S325 to the cemplaiRRnts and TO deliver
them 500 shares Of the capital stock Of the
| New York, West Shore and Buffalo Kali
road. with no costs 60 either party.