Briggs v. Briggs
| Decision Date | 07 February 1905 |
| Citation | 59 A. 878 |
| Parties | BRIGGS v. BRIGGS. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Petition by Bertram R. Briggs against Emma S. Briggs. On exceptions to master's report. Exceptions overruled.
August Ziegner, for petitioner.
MAGIE, Ch. There are two grounds on which the report of the master ought, in my judgment, to be confirmed.
1. The evidence of complainant's attempts to induce his wife to return to him after a separation not intended to be a desertion is based in the main upon the recollection of witnesses of the contents of letters asserted to have been sent, which letters, or copies of which, are not produced. This evidence is too unsubstantial and unsatisfactory to justify reliance thereon. The marked difference in the tone of defendant's first letter and the tone of the next letter produced from her renders it impossible to credit that complainant had, in the meantime, properly sought to induce her by letter to return to him.
2. This conclusion also justifies the finding of the master that the complainant had not exercised such diligence in seeking the return of his wife as circumstances required.
The result is that the exceptions must be overruled, and the bill dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Bell
...59 A. 627; Hunt v. Hunt (N. J. Ch.), 59 A. 642; Hagle v. Hagle, 74 Cal. 608, 16 P. 518; Haley v. Haley, 67 Cal. 24, 7 P. 3; Briggs v. Briggs (N. J. Ch.), 59 A. 878; Edwards v. Edwards, 69 N.J. Eq. 522, 61 A. Meier v. Meier, 68 N.J. Eq. 9, 59 A. 234; McElhaney v. McElhaney, 125 Iowa 333, 101......
- Plitcroft v. Allenhurst Club