Lindley v. Lindley

68 Vt. 421
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedMay 15, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 68 Vt. 421 (Lindley v. Lindley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lindley v. Lindley, 68 Vt. 421 (Vt. 1896).

Opinion

ROSS, C.J.

The only question presented is the measure of proof required in a divorce proceeding to establish the cause of adultery. It is a civil proceeding to determine the relation and the rights of the parties under, and to, the marriage contract. The violation of it, charged, is a crime under the laws of this- state. Whatever may be the measure of proof required to establish such a charge in a civil proceeding, in other jurisdictions, for many years, in this state, the measure of proof required, has been that adopted by the county court, — a preponderance of the testimony, weighing the presumption of innocence in favor of the party accused. Bradish v. Bliss, 35 Vt. 326; Stanton v. Simpson, 48 Vt. 628; Weston v. Gravlin, 49 Vt. 507. We do not understand that any different measure of proof is announced in Gould v. Gould, 2 Aik. 180. If so, it has never been followed, in practice, to the recollection, or knowledge of any member of this court. But the rule there announced, as we understand it, not to grant a divorce on the uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner, or admissions of the petitionee, has always been followed, and especially when the cause alleged is a crime, in opposition to which the presumption of innocence is to be weighed. This rule rests upon the reason there stated, that the public, and frequently minor children, are interested in proceedings affecting marital re[423]*423lations, and also upon the ground that in such proceedings generally the trial court hears only the petitioner’s side of the case. Foster v. Redfield, 50 Vt. 285 ; Richardson v. Richardson, 50 Vt. 119.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, J., being absent in county court, did not sit.

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

Related

LYNDONVILLE SAVINGS BANK & T. CO. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
234 A.2d 340 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1967)
Foundry Manufacturing Co. v. Farr
126 A. 548 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1924)
Walker v. Walker
104 A. 828 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1918)
Lyons v. Lyons
21 Haw. 474 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1913)
Taft v. Taft
67 A. 703 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 Vt. 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindley-v-lindley-vt-1896.