Case Name: Fluck v. Fluck
Court: Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1922-02-20
Citations: 2 Pa. D. & C. 86
Docket Number: No. 157
Parties: Fluck v. Fluck.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania District and County Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 86–86

Head Matter:
Fluck v. Fluck.
Divorce — Adultery—Evidence—Declarations of paramour.
Voluntary declarations of a paramour, not under oath and not subject to cross-examination, are not sufficient to justify a decree in divorce on the ground of adultery.
Divorce. C. P. Lehigh Co., April T., 1921, No. 157.
Hyman Bookmaker, for libellant.
Feb. 20, 1922.

Opinion:
Geoman, P. J.,
The decree in divorce recommended by the master in this proceeding is largely based on declarations made to the wife in the presence of a witness by an alleged paramour of respondent.
A paramour voluntarily making statements, not under oath nor subject to cross-examination, is not entitled to much credence: Pleckel v. Heckel, 8 Dist. R. 27; such declarations, standing alone, will not justify a decree in divorce: Fairchild v. Fairchild, 1 Kulp, 400. Admissions and confessions, unsupported by other proof or corroborating circumstances, do not justify a decree on the ground of adultery: Quick v. Quick, 6 Kulp, 137.
Now, Feb. 20, 1922, decree in divorce refused.
From James L. Schaadt, Allentown, Pa.