Slack v. Slack

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Slack v. Slack

105 A. 894, 89 N.J. Eq. 589, 4 Stock. 589, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 368

DecidedNovember 18, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A. 894 (Slack v. Slack) 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

Slack v. Slack, 105 A. 894, 89 N.J. Eq. 589, 4 Stock. 589, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 368 (N.J. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce granted to Leroi C. Slack, the petitioner below, the ground of the decree being the adultery of the wife committed by her with one Andrew Mitchell. The case is one entirely of fact, and no good purpose will be served by a recital of the evidence; it is enough to say that we have examined -it carefully and reach the same conclusion as that expressed by the vice-chancellor, to wit, that the charge laid by the petitioner against Mrs. Slack is amply supported by the testimony of the witnesses'examined in the cause.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

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 of divorce granted to Leroi C. Slack, the petitioner below, the ground of the decree being the adultery of the wife committed by her with one Andrew Mitchell. The case is one entirely of fact, and no good purpose will be served by a recital of the evidence; it is enough to say that we have examined -it carefully and reach the same conclusion as that expressed by the vice-chancellor, to wit, that the charge laid by the petitioner against Mrs. Slack is amply supported by the testimony of the witnesses'examined in the cause.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A. 894, 89 N.J. Eq. 589, 4 Stock. 589, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slack-v-slack-nj-1918.