Martin v. Martin

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Martin v. Martin

100 A. 228, 87 N.J. Eq. 361, 2 Stock. 361, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 441

DecidedMarch 5, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A. 228 (Martin v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Martin, 100 A. 228, 87 N.J. Eq. 361, 2 Stock. 361, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 441 (N.J. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the petition of a wife for a divorce a mensa et thoro upon the ground of extreme cruelt}r. The specific charges made by her against her husband were gross abuse of marital rights, physical violence and unfounded accusation of adultery committed by her. These charges are supported by her-own testimony upon the witness-stand, but we fail to discover in our examination of the proofs sent up by the court below such corroboration of her story as the law requires in order to entitle her to the relief sought. Very little effort appears to have been made to produce such corroborating testimony, and that which was offered seems in the opinion of the advisory master not to have been entitled to much credit. It makes the same impression upon us, and we cannot, therefore, say that the dismissal of the petition was not justified by the proofs.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn/ Kaltscii, Black, WlITTE, PIePRENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER-13. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the petition of a wife for a divorce a mensa et thoro upon the ground of extreme cruelt}r. The specific charges made by her against her husband were gross abuse of marital rights, physical violence and unfounded accusation of adultery committed by her. These charges are supported by her-own testimony upon the witness-stand, but we fail to discover in our examination of the proofs sent up by the court below such corroboration of her story as the law requires in order to entitle her to the relief sought. Very little effort appears to have been made to produce such corroborating testimony, and that which was offered seems in the opinion of the advisory master not to have been entitled to much credit. It makes the same impression upon us, and we cannot, therefore, say that the dismissal of the petition was not justified by the proofs.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn/ Kaltscii, Black, WlITTE, PIePRENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER-13. For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A. 228, 87 N.J. Eq. 361, 2 Stock. 361, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nj-1917.