Knowles v. Knowles
| Decision Date | 02 April 1917 |
| Citation | 29 Del. 458,100 A. 569 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | JACOB C. KNOWLES v. LULU KNOWLES |
Superior Court, Sussex County, February Term, 1917.
DIVORCE No. 14, October Term, 1916.
Action by Jacob C. Knowles against Lulu Knowles for divorce.
The competency of the plaintiff to testify was objected to on the ground that he did not believe in a Supreme Being, and did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. Evidence heard. Plaintiff allowed to testify. Counsel for defendant asked that he be allowed to put witnesses on the stand to prove the plaintiff's former declarations of disbelief in a Supreme Being.
Counsel for plaintiff requested that the latter be interrogated by the court as to his religious belief, in order that the court might be satisfied as to the competency of plaintiff to be sworn as a witness.
Counsel for defendant contended that the practice was that if there are persons who have heard the declarations of the plaintiff respecting his disbeliefs, they should first be called to testify, and the plaintiff could then qualify himself by calling other witnesses who had heard him make declarations in favor of religious belief. Citing State v. Townsend, 2 Harr. (Del.) 543, and Perry's Adm'r v Stewart, 2 Harr. (Del.) 37.
The divorce is refused and the petition for divorce is dismissed with costs on the plaintiff.
Andrew J. Lynch and William W. Knowles for plaintiff.
Albert Worth and Daniel J. Layton, Jr., for defendant.
OPINION
We think that the plaintiff should step aside and defendant should have the opportunity of showing, if she can, that this plaintiff is disqualified as a witness, and he will be given an opportunity to show, if he can, that he is qualified.
Witnesses for the defendant testified that they had heard the plaintiff say that an agnostic was one who did not know, and an infidel was one who did not believe, and that he was an infidel, that he did not want any damned preacher saying anything over him, but wanted a friend to read at his funeral Ingersoll's oration at the grave of his brother, that he objected to his daughter going to Sunday School, that he picked up a Sunday School leaflet one day and said he didn't want that damned stuff taught to his child, that he believed that when he died that was the end of him, the same as a dog, that he did not believe in a Supreme Being.
Witnesses for plaintiff testified that they had heard him say that an agnostic was a doubter, who neither affirmed nor denied, that the atheist was the man who denied, and the infidel was a person who did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was the belief of the Jew and the Unitarian, and that he was in a class with them.
Plaintiff testified that he never said that he did not believe in a Supreme Being, that he had said that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but that he did believe in a Supreme Being, and a future state of punishments and rewards, that he did not take an oath, but that he believed in the sacredness of an affirmation as much as any man living.
We will permit the plaintiff to be sworn.
The court proceeded to hear the evidence, the general character of which appears in the opinion of the court, delivered at the following April Term thereof.
The ground for divorce in this case is adultery. The plaintiff in his testimony was positive as to the act of adultery on which he bases his claim for divorce. The respondent was equally positive that no such occurrence as was sworn to by the husband ever took place, and she denied positively that any improper relations had ever existed between her and the co-respondent.
The plaintiff's testimony is in no wise corroborated. True there was some testimony introduced to show friendly relations between the respondent and the co-respondent, but these friendly relations extended to all members of the plaintiff's family,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarr v. Tarr
...in our opinion, intended by the Legislature. King v. United States, 6 Cir., 17 F.2d 61; Burns v. Burns, 60 Ind. 259; Knowles v. Knowles, 6 Boyce, Del., 458, 100 A. 569, 570; Herrman v. Herrman, 93 Misc. 315, 156 N.Y.S. 688, 690. In the last case, the court, upon consideration of a similar a......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
... ... Renewing the relation of living together as man and wife [146 ... Fla. 319] embraces the renewal of sexual relations. See ... Knowles v. Knowles, 6 Boyce 458, 29 Del. 458, 100 A ... 569. Sexual intercourse without forgiveness is condonation if ... engaged in after the offended ... ...
-
Tarr v. Tarr
...was, in our opinion, intended by the Legislature. King United States, 17 F.(2d) 61; Burns Burns, 60 Ind. 259; Knowles Knowles, 6 Boyce's (29 Del.) 458, 100 A. 569, 570; Herrman Herrman, 93 Misc. 315, 156 N.Y.S. 688, 690. In the last case, the court, upon consideration of a similar act state......
- Mesa Partners v. Phillips Petroleum Co.