Delfa v. Delfa, 216.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 216.,216. |
| Citation | 29 A.2d 853,133 N.J.Eq. 19 |
| Parties | DELFA v. DELFA. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Proofs examined, and held to justify decree dismissing husband's petition for divorce and awarding wife maintenance upon her counterclaim.
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Petition for divorce by Joseph Delfa against Angeline Def. Delfa, wherein defendant filed a counterclaim for maintenance. Decree of dismissal, and petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
William Ripley Cobb and Jacob L. Newman, both of Newark, for appellant.
Mortimer Katz and William L. Vieser, both of Newark, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery, advised by Advisory Master Grosman, dismissing the appellant's petition for divorce, which alleged adultery on the part of the wife, and awarding his wife support on her counterclaim for maintenance.
The Advisory Master concluded that adultery was not established by the proofs. With this conclusion we are in accord.
The parties were married August 23, 1939, at which time the respondent was a widow 37 years of age with two children, aged 10 and 11 years respectively. Petitioner-appellant had likewise been married before and was then 53 years of age. They lived together for approximately a year, separating on August 29, 1940. The husband endeavored to show that his wife left him without cause and because, as he says she told him, she had somebody who would give her more money.
The respondent testified that, at the time of their marriage, it was agreed by the appellant that he would support her and her children. Accordingly, they moved into an apartment in a six-family house owned by appellant. She said he was most miserly, giving her sometimes $10 a week for household expenses, sometimes less and sometimes nothing; that appellant resented being required to support her children, and suggested, and finally even insisted, that she abandon her children. This she refused to do, and left her husband's home, taking the children with her. During the time she lived with appellant, respondent borrowed some money on life insurance and attempted to operate a dress-making and hoisery store in order to get money for the adequate maintenance of herself and her children. This effort failed.
Respondent rented an apartment in Irvington, expecting her sister, who was about to be married, to share the apartment with her. Her sister's intended husband, however, insisted that they live alone. Finding herself with a larger place than she needed or could afford, respondent advertised a room for rent and the co-respondent, after viewing it, rented and occupied it. The proofs are clear that the respondent and the co-respondent had no previous acquaintance.
Appellant relies upon his own testimony and that of one Joseph Capello, who on two occasions accompanied him to the Irvington apartment of respondent. They testified that, by peeking through a window, they saw, on one occasion, the boarder eating at a table in his undershirt, and, on another occasion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial