Turney v. Turney
New York Court of Chancery
Bill for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, filed by the wife against the husband. It had been taken as confessed; and, on reference, the master deemed the testimony sufficient to warrant a decree. Two women gave evidence; both showing that they knew the parties in the suit; and each saying she had had connection with the defendant. In signing their depositions they used their mark.
Read the full summary
Bill for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, filed by the wife against the husband. It had been taken as confessed; and, on reference, the master deemed the testimony sufficient to warrant a decree. Two women gave evidence; both showing that they knew the parties in the suit; and each saying she had had connection with the defendant. In signing their depositions they used their mark. And the witness, who proved the marriage, added, in his affidavit, “ They (the complainant and defendant) lived together as man and wife until about two or three years ago, when they separated and have not since…
1Opinion of the Court
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*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…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Moller v. . MollerNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- AnonymousThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
- Paul v. PaulNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883
- People ex rel. Sheldon v. CurtinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912