Persch v. Weideman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by .the defendant; Carl J. Weideman, from an order of the Supreme Court; made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the. clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of ■March, 1905, striking out as irrelevant’ redundant and scandalous the second and third defenses set up in the amended answer, and requiring the defendant to re-serve said amended answer with the portions so stricken out and omitted, and to surrender the original of…
Read the full summary
Appeal by .the defendant; Carl J. Weideman, from an order of the Supreme Court; made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the. clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of ■March, 1905, striking out as irrelevant’ redundant and scandalous the second and third defenses set up in the amended answer, and requiring the defendant to re-serve said amended answer with the portions so stricken out and omitted, and to surrender the original of said.amended.answer to the plaintiff’s- attorney for cancellation, and directing the clerk to deliver to the plaintiff’s attorney the…
1Opinion of the Court
Laughlin, J.:
This is an action for criminal conversation. The plaintiff alleges that he' married Gretchen T. Persch on the 18th d'ay of January, 1904, and that they thereafter lived happily together until the 1st d’ay of July, 1904, when the; defendant, well knowing her to be the plaintiff's, wife, willfully and maliciously, and with intent to injure the plaintiff, alienated the affections of his_ wife and established and subsequently continued intimate; relations with her. Certain parts of .the answer set forth facts which, if established, will • constitute a complete defense to the answer,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Armstrong v. PhillipsNew York Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walters v. BattenfieldNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1916
- W. T. Hanson Co. v. CollierAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907