Norwich bulletin., 1920-11-23

Mrs. Annie Lubchansky of New London divorce and alimony from Reuben Lub- chansky in the suit that was tried be- fore the judge at the recent session of the superior court. The divorce was sued for on the grounds of adultery.
 A decree of divorce may be entered on the grounds alleged, with change of name as prayed for, says the concluding para graph of Judge Hinman's memorandum of decision Alimony is assigned to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500 payable by the defendant within sixty days, and, in addition thereto, alimony of $50 per- month payable on the first day of each month hereafter; provided, however, that the defendant may, at any time, pay to the plaintiff the further sum of $2,- 500 in lieu of such periodical payments monthly as would otherwise accrue.
 In his memorandum of decision Judge Hinman says: "The plaintiff is entitled to divorce on the grounds alleged. The sole remaining contention is as to the claim for alirnony. It is undisputed that the plaintiff owns real and personal prop erty and the value of this property is found to be about ,000-consisting mostly of an equity in real estate en- cumbered for about two-thirds of it's value The defendant has, however. prior to the bringing of this action transferred to the plaintiff certain real estate and moneys of the total value of about $7,O00.
 "The defendant claims, however, that the plaintiff is debarred from an award to her of alimony by an agreement in writing between plaintiff and defendant, dated June 25, 1915, and, as Exhibit A, annexed tol the amended answer.
 Faint of IIlegaIity.
 Judge Hinman overrules plaintiffs de- murrer to the second defense for the reason that the grounds on which said , agreement is hereinafter held to be void are based, not upon said agreement alone but also upon evidence showing it to be tainted with illegality. Defendants de- murrer. to the reply is overruIed for D like reason. In such a case as this the court may go behind the written instru- ment and deal with the transaction on it's merits, and it is immaterial whether the illegality of the instrument is cre- ated by statute, or whethersit is immoral, or in some other way contravenes the
 general policy of the law.
 Said agreement, Exhibit A, was not made in view of, or in settlement of a demand for alimony in divorce proceed ! ings already commenced or determined | upon, continues Judge Hinman's memo randum-on the contrary it expressly
 
 such proceedings. Maisch vs. Maisch, 1 S7 Conn BIT, principally relied upon by | the defendant, holds, at most, that a contract made between husband and wife | in view of divorce proceedings already instituted or determined upon, and not made to facilitate divorce but solely as an anlicable settlement of property af- 1 fairs. is not necessarily void as contrary i to public policy unless concealed from 1 the court
 By the agreement here under consider
 ation the wife agrees that, although nc | divorce was at the date of agreement contemplated, if she obtain divorce thereafter, she will accept and, treat th' property received by her from her hus
 band, prior to the making of the agree | ment and not in contemplation of it, il
 lieu of alimony and will thereby evel
 forfeit and So relieve her husband iron
 payment of the weekly payments ($1 . per week. provided for in said contract Intended to Facilitate Illicit Relations.
 It appears, says the memorandum
 that adulterous relations by the defend
 ant with another woman had then lon since commenced and a continuance 0
 the same was contemplated by him. in
 deed one of the objects on his part i
 procuring the agreement was that con
 tinuance of said illicit relations nigh
 by the absence of his wife, be facilita tet
 The effect and nature of this contract, S
 far at least as the provision concernin alimony is concerned is analogous to tlla
 considered in Pereira vs. Pereira Gal
 23 L. R. A. (N. s. 881, rather than t
 that in Maisch vs. Maisch. Here, as Pereira vs Per1lra, the real effect of tn contract so far as the husband is cor cerned would be to provide against la
 bility for a contemplated wrong to D inflicted by him upon his wife and to | quidate such liability in advance of til commission of the wrong. ! By this contract, if valid, he was le
 free to 'infict upon his wife the mos , compel her to obtain divorce secure , the protection of his contract that th ! property he had already transferred f her would satisfy all her claims agains , him of pecuniary nature." The ex, : cution of a valid contract of this sol could but encourage him to commit O. , lenses against his wife giving her caus for and leading her to seek a divorce
 As it was obviously adopted to produC this result it is to be presumed that tn was one of the inducements which mao . him desire its execution. The law dot : not couztenance such agreements Ar ' | it's object the dissolution of the maj :, l riage contract or facilitating that resu : is- void as against public policy and zoe 5 | morals.
 | This ground is sufficient to render u