The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-05-27
BROWN CASE ENDS
Vice Chancellor Pitney Ad-
vises Decree of Divorce
in Favor Of the
Plaintiff.
HUSBAND CHARGED UNPAITHFULNESS
Wife Made Counter Charges
But of a Far Less Seri-
Gus Nature.

vice Chancellor Pitney today handed
down his opinion in the divorce suit
brought by Mr. George H. Brown against
his wife, Mrs. Mary G. Brown. The Vice
Chancellor advises a decree for divorce in
favor of Mr.. Brown.
In the petition misconduct with w. H.
Cane, Jr., of Bogota, son of the Mayor
of that place, was alleged against Mrs.
Brown, who denied the charges. Mr..
Flavel MCGEE and Mr.. Thos. f. Bedle rep
resented Mr.. Brown and Mr.. Isaac 5.
Taylor the wife.
Mrs Browns parents lived in Bayonne
and her marriage with Mr.. Brown took
place December 27, 1888. Two children
were born, George T. and Gordon. In 1888
Mr. and Mrs. Brown removed to Bogota,
where they made the acquaintance of the
Cane family. In December, 1886, the
Browns removed to Jersey City, first oc-
cupying house on York street and after
wards living on Glenwood avenue.
In the summer of 1897 Mrs. Brown went
to Bogota and boarded with Mrs. Lud-
wig, and during that visit something took
place which aroused Mr.. Browns suspi-
cions that his wife was unfaithful to him.
One afternoon she and young Cane went
away on their wheels and were gone the
whole evening and only returned at five
o'clock the next morning.
1.-THE next remarkable fact about this
isl said the Vice Chancellor, that the
father of the correspondent observed the
intimacy which apparently existed be-
tween his son and the defendant, and
spoke to his son in a reproving tone
about it and having occasion to meet the
petitioner on business apprised him OF his
wife's conduct and told him that II he
would go to Red Bank and observe what
was going on there he would probably hno
cause for divorce
Mr.. Brown at once employed detectives
and the result of their investigation was
the present suit. In closing very
lengthy review of the case the Vice
Chancellor said
This review of the evidence leads me
to the conclusion that the case discioses
no connivance on the part of the hus-
band He was, in nay judgment, perfectly
justified in believing that, if his wife was
at all disposed to go astray she had
already done so b zore he received notice
of her disposition, and while he was not
justified in placing any temptation in her
way and did not do SO, he was entirely
justified in refraining from warning her
and watching her as he did, for If al
ready guilty, he was, of course, justified
in casting her off. For these reasons I
will advise a decree for the petitioner.
In explanation of the Vice Chancellor's S
remarks about connivance, Mrs. Browns
answer set up that it was at her hus-
bands request she was escorted by young
Cane Mrs. Brown further charged that
he did this to cover her husbands atten-
tions to Miss Wetanitz. who was at one
time employed as cashier in Mr.. Browns
store. Mrs. Brown said that her husband
advanced Miss Wetanitz the necessary
funds to take course in the State Nor
nal School to qualify her for public
school teacher and that she ulti-
mately was SO engaged in New
Durham The Vice Chancellor, COM
menting on this, says that while
Mr.. Brown occasionally visited Miss
Wetanitz at her boarding house, the
circumstances would hardly suggest any
improper relations and the bringing of her
name into the cause ought not to affect
her character in the least.
saThe defendant does not charge" says
the opinion. adultery between her hus-
band and the young lady, and her coun-
sci put her distinctly on record before the