Cruikshank v. Cruikshank

• Decision Date: 02 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 134.,134.
• Citation: 170 A. 659
• Parties: CRUIKSHANK v. CRUIKSHANK.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

170 A. 659

CRUIKSHANK

v. CRUIKSHANK.

No. 134.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 2, 1934.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Frank D. Cruikshank against Laura Cochran Cruikshank. From a decree for defendant, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

On appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery, advised by Advisory Master Matthews, who filed the following opinion:

"The petition for divorce is by a husband alleging extreme cruelty on the part of his wife. Several acts of cruelty are alleged, all of them virtually of the same character namely, the drunkenness of the wife which is said to have caused the husband mortification and shame before his children and some of his neighbors who viewed some of the acts complained of. These acts of drunkenness he alleges have made him nervous, have caused him to lose weight, have impaired his health and business efficiency, and will continue so to do.

"The couple have been married twenty-two years and have four children, 20, 17, 15, and 14 years old. The defendant is 45 years old and according to her husband's testimony, had change of life a year ago. She started drinking four or five years ago.

"The evidence offered to prove the physical effects on the petitioner of these acts of public and private drunkenness is principally that of a Dr. Salvati, who, however, finds the petitioner organically sound, though nervous from a mental cause which, from the history given by the petitioner, the doctor declares to be these acts of drunkenness on the part of the defendant. The loss of weight alleged by the petitioner as consequent upon this nervousness is unproved save by petitioner's statement to the doctor, for the doctor did not weigh him before or after his examination or during the course of his treatments.

"The alleged acts of cruelty, to wit, private and public drunkenness, are testified to by several witnesses, one of whom is one of the four children of the defendant, the other three not having been called as witnesses.

"This suit for divorce was undefended by the defendant wife, though I have before me a brief filed in her behalf asking that the decision of the special master be affirmed.

"I have examined the testimony and briefs in this case intimately and have concluded that the decision of the special master recommending that the petition for divorce be denied should be affirmed.

"For the benefit of counsel for the petitioner, who has requested my decision in writing, I will say that the...