Turney v. Turney

4 Edw. Ch. 566, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 506, 1844 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 25
New York Court of Chancery·Decided October 23, 1844·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor :

The testimony is insufficient as to lion-cohabitation. Summers, the witness, testifies but negatively and not to his knowledge. The contrary may exist. He says, both parties reside in the city of New York. If this be so, why has not the complainant produced the per[567]*567sons with whom she has resided since her alleged separation, in order to show how or in what manner she has lived'? And if she be a chaste and virtuous woman herself, how does it happen that she is known to the two prostitutes who have been examined as witnesses. This part of the case requires explanation.

Besides—as to the fact of adultery: it rests solely on the testimony of two women whose characters, from their own showing, disentitle them to any credit. Such testimony may do when corroborated by facts or circumstances from other witnesses ; but standing alone, as in this instance, a decree should not be made upon it.

The cause may go back to the master for further proof.

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

Turney v. Turney, 4 Edw. Ch. 566, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 506, 1844 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 25 (N.Y. 1844).

4 Edw. Ch. 566 (Turney v. Turney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. Sheldon v. Curtin
27 N.Y. Crim. 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Moller v. . Moller
22 N.E. 169 (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
Paul v. Paul
37 N.J. Eq. 23 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1883)
Anonymous
17 Abb. Pr. 48 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1862)