Chipchase v. Chipchase

• Decision Date: 17 August 1891
• Citation: 22 A. 588,48 N.J.E. 549
• Parties: CHIPCHASE v. CHIPCHASE.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

22 A. 588

48 N.J.E. 549

CHIPCHASE

v. CHIPCHASE.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Aug. 17, 1891.

On bill, answer, and proofs in open court.

E. K. Seguine, for petitioner.

A. Q. Garretson, for defendant.

GREEN, V. C. This is an action for divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at Mt. Hope, Westchester county, N. Y., June 14, 1883. The complainant, at the time of her marriage, resided there with her father, and has continued to live there up to the present time. The bill alleges that the defendant deserted his wife in August, 1885. It was filed on the 16th of May, 1890. It appeared in the evidence that the husband, at the time of marriage, was employed by a firm in New York city, but soon after his marriage the head of the firm died, and he was thrown out of employment; that he sought to get into business unsuccessfully until August, 1885, on the 25th day of which month he went to Kansas City to find employment. This action on his part was with the entire consent and approbation of his wife, and with the understanding that if he was successful in his efforts she would follow him, with their little child, and take up their residence wherever he might become established. They corresponded together, and he, from time to time, up to June, 1886, remitted money to her. He wrote her in January, 1886, that he had a promise of a fair salary, on which he thought they could support themselves with economy, but advised her, in consequence of the inclement state of the weather, not to venture there with her infant until later in the season. His last remittance to her was on June 25, 1886, and after that time the correspondence seems to have been less frequent, if it was not entirely discontinued. He lost his situation in Kansas City, and was reduced to penury. Friends assisted him with means to return to the east, and he came back in February, 1887. He returned by a route which had its termination at New York city,—by the Hudson River Railroad. He arrived in New York in the middle of the night, and went immediately to his relatives in Hudson county, N. J. He did not communicate the fact of his return to his wife; neither did he go there or write to her. He accounted for this, in the first place, by lack of means, which prevented his going there immediately after his arrival, and because he had heard that his wife did not desire to see him. His wife knew, however, of his return, but neither sent to him nor communicated with him by letter or otherwise. She took measures to institute an action in the courts of New York against him for divorce on the ground of adultery, alleged to have been committed in Kansas City early in the year 1887. Rumors of such action on her part reached the defendant, and he requested a connection of his family, Rev. Mr. Sherwood, to go and see his wife. Mr. Sherwood called upon her on April 4, 1887, and told her that he came from her husband, saying that her husband was willing to support her to the best of his ability if she would return to him. Her reply to Mr. Sherwood was that she had no confidence in his support, and was not willing and would not under any circumstances return to him; and, further, that the child should not bear its father's name. Mr. Sherwood said, further, that he came from her husband at his request, and that he had told him to tell her that he would support her. Mrs. Chipchase and her father say that this interview impressed them only with the idea that the proposition was made for the purpose of extracting some answer, and seem to have questioned its good faith. She says that she employed Mr. John H. Hull, of the New York bar, to prosecute her action against her husband in that state as early as May, 1887, and did not prosecute the same actively for financial reasons. Information reached the defendant that proceedings were to be taken in New Jersey looking to his arrest, and thereupon Mr. Rudolph Rabe was employed in his behalf. Mr. Rabe testified that he waited on Mr. Hull, the counsel for the complainant, in New York, to prevent any such action. Complainant then called on Mr. Rabe, who declined to have any communication with her except in presence of her counsel; but, on her explaining that she had visited him at Mr. Hull's request, he asked her what she wanted. She then said to him that she wanted to get rid of her husband, and he told her that her hushand was willing to support her, and asked her if she was willing to go to New Jersey to live with him;...