Case Name: Charles E. Drake, petitioner-respondent, v. Elizabeth Drake, defendant-appellant
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1917-03-05
Citations: 87 N.J. Eq. 385
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles E. Drake, petitioner-respondent, v. Elizabeth Drake, defendant-appellant.
Judges: For mffk-mmce—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, • Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisci-i, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner—12. ■
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
Charles E. Drake, petitioner-respondent, v. Elizabeth Drake, defendant-appellant.
[Submitted November Term, 1916.
Decided March 5th, 1917.]
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Advisory Master Magie, who filed the following opinion:
“Notwithstanding the denials of the defendant and Bellott, the evidence satisfies me'that she is guilty as charged by the petitioner. .
“This conclusion would ordinarily result in advising the decree nisi in favor of the petitioner, but, under the provision of section 28 of the Divorce, law, such a decree cannot be advised if the charges made by the defendant at her cross-petition are sustained by sufficient evidence.
“The evidence on that subject is, in my judgment, not satisfactory. It is encountered by the denials by petitioner of the charge. I would be unwilling to, advise a decree thereon.
“The result of all is, that petitioner is entitled to a decree nisi and I will so advise.”
Mr. George 17. V. Moy, for the appellant.
Mr. Robert N. Crane, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Advisory Master Magie.
For mffk-mmce—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, • Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisci-i, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner—12.
For reversal—None.