Clark v. Clark
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Libel for divorce from the bond of matrimony for adultery alleged to have been committed by the libellee in July 1844 at Potten, in Canada East, with one Samuel A. Clark. At the hearing, before Wells, J., the act was proved by the testimony of a brother of the libellant, who saw it committed, and informed his parents thereof, at whose house the libellee was then visiting, and in consequence she returned to Worcester in this state where her husband was residing.
Read the full summary
Libel for divorce from the bond of matrimony for adultery alleged to have been committed by the libellee in July 1844 at Potten, in Canada East, with one Samuel A. Clark. At the hearing, before Wells, J., the act was proved by the testimony of a brother of the libellant, who saw it committed, and informed his parents thereof, at whose house the libellee was then visiting, and in consequence she returned to Worcester in this state where her husband was residing. A few months afterwards the parties removed from Worcester to Potten where they lived until 1862, and a child was born to them in…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
Mere lapse of time is not a defence to a libel for divorce. There must be some evidence to show knowledge by the libellant of the breach of the marriage obligations on which the libel is founded; and a failure or omission for an unreasonable period of time to prosecute an action of divorce, in order to defeat the right of a party to a decree dissolving the marriage. 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. (4th ed.) §§ 103-112, 342, and cases cited. In the case at bar there is nothing from which it can be inferred that there has been anything like connivance by . the husband with the wife in her first act of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clark v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Clark v. ClementSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901