Edwards v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 03 July 1905
• Citation: 69 N.J.E. 522,61 A. 531
• Parties: EDWARDS v. EDWARDS.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

61 A. 531

69 N.J.E. 522

EDWARDS

v. EDWARDS.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 3, 1905.

Petition for divorce by Joseph Edgar Edwards against Elizabeth J. W. Edwards. Dismissed.

W. D. Wolfskeil, for petitioner.

MAGIE, Ch. The master, to whom this undefended divorce case was referred, has reported that the proofs before him establish a willful desertion of petitioner by defendant on July 29, 1901. I am unable to discover sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. On July 29, 1901, the defendant left the house in which she and her husband had been living, and thereafter did not return. When she left, her husband was absent. In his testimony, he admits that his wife and he had a quarrel on the night preceding that day; but he claims that they had been reconciled If the wife's conduct in leaving indicates an intent to desert, the case of the petitioner will be made out.

Her intent at the time is indicated in two modes: (1) By the testimony of a neighbor, who came to her house while she was preparing to leave, and to whom she stated that she was intending to leave; and (2) by a letter which defendant sat down and wrote to her husband in the presence of the neighbor. This letter is more persuasive evidence than that elicited from the person present. I find it impossible to read it and resist the conviction that its writer did not intend to break up her home and life by removing from her husband's house. In it she declares that her husband loves his mother better than he loves her, and plainly indicates that there had been a serious quarrel between them, evidently respecting some difficulty with his mother. She says, "I do not like black looks as I have been getting, and you would not do it if you did not want me to go;" and a fair inference is that in this, and perhaps in previous quarrels, his conduct was such that she assumed that he desired her to leave him. At all events, after signing herself thus, "I am as very [ever] your true and loving wive," she adds, "Now, Ed, go and have a good time, as I will stay at home; but if you want to see me, you can."

From the tone of this letter, I think it clear, under the doctrine of our cases, that it was the duty of the husband to seek and urge a reconciliation with his wife, who thus left him holding out a hope that, if he came to see her, matters might be mended. Petitioner did not perform this duty, but on the. 2d of August published in the local newspaper a notice that his wife had left him, and...