Fluck v. Fluck

Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

Fluck v. Fluck

2 Pa. D. & C. 86, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 183

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County

DecidedFebruary 20, 1922

DocketNo. 157

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pa. D. & C. 86 (Fluck v. Fluck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fluck v. Fluck, 2 Pa. D. & C. 86, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 183 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pa. D. & C. 86, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fluck-v-fluck-pactcompllehigh-1922.