Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-04-03
EARL To FIGHT
W|FE'S DIVORCE
Husband Appeals to Court OF
Errors in Noted Jer-
sey Case.
rsnscinl 40 the Evenlne star.l

Especial 20 the Evening start
TRENTON, April S.--Another action
in the noted divorce suit OF Mrs. lrma
Lee Earl against her husband, Pinney
Woodward Earl developed today
when briefs were filed with the Court
of Errors and Appeals, where the case
is pending. The defendant is we'll
known resident Of Burlington and
Edgewater Park.
The case is before the errors court
upon the appeal of the husband from
the decree of the Court of Ghancery
granting Mrs Earl a divorce. AT the
opening of the March term OF the Tor
mer court il was agreed that the case
should be submitted in brlets lnsteao
of being argued orally. The appeal
Is now before the errors court Tor
1nal decision.
Was Runaway Match
Sensational features have attended
the progress Of this case. The mar
rage was a runaway match. IL
v7as solemnized in 1909. Earl was the
scion of a rich family, and at the time
Of the ceremony was twenty TWO
years old. His wife was still In her
teens. They lived with the mother
of the husband until the latter part
Of 1909. when they moved to new
house in Edgewater Park, where the
mother had prepared a home for
them. The couple separated in 1911.
Within a short time after their
parting the wife brought action Tor
divorce. She charged the husband
with violating his marriage vows. He
denied the charge. Then he filed
cross petition, alleging infidelity on
the part of the woman. He named
Mark Whitfield, a servant In their
home, as the correspondent.
The pivotal point in the case was;
If both parties we're culpable in the
allegations preferred which of the
parties had been guilty first? The
Court of Chancery rendered a decision
that the charges against the wife mad
not been proven but that she mad
made out her case against her hus-
band. A decree of divorce was grant
ed her.
Theodore Backes, of Trenton, as
counsel for Mrs. Earl, filed her brief
After reviewing the case and the tes-
timony before the Court of Chancery
he argues that the decree should stand
and be affirmed. He charges Earl
with giving false evidence to support
"the dastardly charge against his
wife" The counsel further says that
1tsNN
peradventure, and that the wanton
and malicious fabrications with which
she has been assailed should not OBJ
struct her path to an affirmance of the
decree divorcing her from this villain
GUS and semi-imbecile-m maniac hus-
band"
Say Chancery Court Erred.
Earl is represented by Gaskill and
Gaskill, of Camden. They contend
that the cross petition filed by their
client should prevail and the decree
be reversed. They argue that the
chancery decree is erroneous because
IL grants Mrs. Earl a divorce upon
alleged admissions of Earl to his wife
end members of her family, concealed
for long time, during which the
petitioner remained in the home of
Earl and was supported by him; fur
Their, because the conduct of Mrs. Earl,
as shown by the testimony, did not
entitle her to divorce. and because
the Chancery court dismissed Earfs
cross petition, when Ii was supported
clear and conclusive testimony.
The case has no connection with the
noted Ferdinand Pinney Earle divorce
action other than the remarkable CO.
incidence of names.