The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-12-27

OTEACH
Strange Conduct by a Wife
Brings About a Stranger
Divorce Case.
NAMES OF PARTIES NOT ON FILE
At First Thought to Be a Sup
posititious Case-Yice Cham
cellof Pitney's Decision.
NAMES OF PARTIES NOT ON FILE
Special to The Jersey citu Neug.

ing considerable attention. Inc opinion
is one by Vice Chancellor Pitney and the
decision embodied therein recommends
that judgment be given in favor of the
husband as against the wife. 1t is a
voluminous document, yet at no place
therein does the name of either the
petitioner or the defendant appear. For
this reason, it is said, s. M. Dickinson,
who has practical charge of the Chan
Gerry office, and who complies the books
containing reports of decisions in Chan
Gerry, is adverse to reporting the opinion.
1t is presumed that the grounds for
not reporting the opinion is that names
being missing it assume the form of a
suppositious or purely theoretical case,
and therefore of no value as a precedent
for deciding a bona fide divorce suit.
There certainly appears to be a mis-
understanding in the matter. The i'm
preston prevails in some circles that
names were omitted from the opinion
to shield the principals from publicity,
and this supposition caused many to
inquire if the Court of Chancery had the
power or right to pursue such a course.
The case has been appealed, but not,
however, on account of the makeup of
the opinion.
When the opinion was handel to one
of the clerk in the Chancery office and
he was unable to find any names therein
to enable him to index the document,
he fell back on the old-fashioned one of
Smith, and the opinion was indexed as
Smith VS.. Smith," and fled away.
NO EFFORT AT SECRECY.
AS a matter of fact there was no spec
ia1 nt4O1anEsn ! aarao ~, 4l0 aaco n : ~
time. The proceedings We're as publicly
conducted as divorce matters usually
are, and possessed the additional feature
of being more Interesting than common.
The parties to the suit are John N.
Lewis, who resides at Sewaren and has
his law offices in New York, and his
wife, Sarah NJ. Lewis.
The husband brought suit on the ground
of desertion. He was represented by
Benjamin "A. Vail of Railway, while the
wife's interests were looked after by
Ford D. Smith of Dover.
According to the statements of the
husband the couple were married in
1860, and since 1886 they made this State
their home. On August 80, 1891, the wife
left the house and did not return to
it until September Is, 1892. Three days
later she once more took her depart
ure, and this time for good. The hus-
bands petition calls this wilful, continu-
Gus and obstinate desertion. 1t was
about one year ago that the husband
decided to institute divorce proceedings
and the cas- has ended for the time
being in his favor.
The wife denied the desertion charge
@-J Ioi-aal Alo - -Tz..- -
kind to her husband. Their married
life had been an unhappy one, she de-
clared, because of her husbands alleged
bad temper and inebriety. She accuses
him of immortality, lack of affection,
declared that her health was destroyed
by twenty years of ill-treatment, charg-
ed him with using personal violence
toward her and with having attempted
to have her confined in the asylum at
Bloomingdale.
Her answer goes on to tell of alleged
hardships, failure to receive money from
her husband and of a time she claims.
she was kept locked in a room, and
that even her children dare not let her
out.
She left home n went to New
York, where, in company with another
woman she opened a private school.
She cites various times on which she
returned to her husbands home at
his solicitation. but on each occasion
she AYERS they could not. get along har-
moniously. The couple have four chill
dren.
IN FAVOR OF THE HUSBAND.
Vice-Chancellor Pitney sets forth in
his opinion, the one tina is indexed as
Smith VS.. Smith" that everything hing
ed on the happenings after September
81, 1891, when the wife left home for
good.
The husbands demand that she either
give up her school or her home was a
proper one. he declares, as the woman's
labors as a school teacher interfered
with her duties as a wife. Even if she
taught school every day n returned
home every night, the husband had a
right to demand that she surrender her
school altogether. Letters from the wife
to the husband were reviewed in which
she implied that some one had usurped
her place and stating that she would
endure almost anything rather tina be
deprived OF the society of her children.
ESli0 DidtIleS min lOI eNSIliiilS, lIeH signs
the letters, Faithfully and Patiently,
Your Wife"
The husbands letters tain an offer
to pay her $4,000 in cash Or her share
in the school if she would five it up and
return to her home. Each in addressing
the other made use of the term dear
Mutual friends appear to have failed
in every attempt to effect a %reconci
iation; the wife chung to her school and.
the husband was finally obliged to ask
the courts for a divorce.
Whether the husband was sincere at
first or not, the Vice-Chancellor held
that his efforts to have her get rid of
the school and return to her home
showed sincerity. Each had imposed
terms and the wife fatty refused to sur
render school for home. Under the strict
terms of the common law the husband
was justified, the opinion goes on to say.
There is no middle ground, A wife must
with her husband or give sufficient
reasens for refusing to do SO. In his
case, the Vice Chancellor holds, the wife
failed to advance reasons with proofs.
The Scriptural injunction, he contends,
holds good in common law. A husband
can use physical restraint over a wife's
person to force obedience, he adds.
In closing his opinion the Vice-Chan-
cellor says that there was nothing UNI
reasonable in the husbands demand