Church v. Mehitable Church
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a libel for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii for the cause of adultery. The allegation was, that the respondent, within five years last past, has deserted the libellant, and committed the crime of adultery.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The charge is too loose. It is impossible for the respondent to know, under such a general allegation as this, to what charge she has to answer. The allegations ought to be so certain and definite that the attorney-general may have the means of prosecuting the offenders. This offence seems growing to an alarming degree. The particeps criminis must be named, or there must be. an averment that he is unknown to the libellant. The libel was afterwards amended (1).
Gold, for the libellant (2).
Note. The chief justice observed that there was an excellent provision in the civil law, that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Poole v. PooleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1936
- Ferris v. FerrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830
- Marsh v. MarshNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1863
- Adams v. AdamsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850