Thomas v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 20 May 1929
• Docket Number: No. 172.,172.
• Citation: 146 A. 431
• Parties: THOMAS v. THOMAS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

146 A. 431

THOMAS

v. THOMAS.

No. 172.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 20, 1929.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Divorce action by William G. Thomas against May (Mary) E. Thomas, in which defendant interposed a counterclaim. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The opinion of Vice Chancellor BUCHANAN in the court below follows:

"The husband petitions for divorce, alleging adultery. The wife denies and recriminates; she also counterclaims on a separate agreement whereby the husband agreed to pay her $250 a month, alleging default in payment since August, 1927, and asking decree for installments past due and for future performance. On the charge of recrimination the proofs wholly fail.

"On the husband's charge of adultery the proofs are such as to convince the court that the charges are true. No witnesses testify to observance of the act itself, but it appears by witnesses on both sides that co-respondent lived with the wife in the same house for a number of months, and for a considerable portion of the time no one else lived with them; that he came there at her solicitation. She says it was because she needed the money for his board; but this is obviously untrue, for she says she received but $10 a week, and at about the same period of time (before and after), she says she kept her brother for some weeks without pay, and a nephew who paid a rate which could not have equalled cost.

"The wife was advised by the husband's brother not to keep the co-respondent as a boarder alone with her; she procured a letter from an attorney advising her that there was nothing wrong in this alone, and kept this in her safe deposit box, although she says that she did not solicit the letter and was surprised to receive it.

"Prior to this time it appears by the testimony of witnesses, one at least of whom was disinterested, that the co-respondent had spent the night occasionally at the wife's apartment. The pair continued to live together for some time, even after they were arrested after a visit to the house by the husband and detectives.

"The wife and her chief witnesses became involved in some significant contradictions, and the fact that they were testifying falsely was quite obvious even to an inexperienced observer. This in itself—the putting forward of false explanations—is indicative of guilt and corroborative of the charges.

"The falsity of testimony was particularly obvious in the case of the co-respondent. He was uneasy, shifting, and his replies grew constantly fainter and more hesitant. Being asked if his first wife obtained a divorce from him on the ground of adultery, he at first denied it, and then later said he did not know. At...