Welch v. Welch, A--437
| Decision Date | 26 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. A--437,A--437 |
| Citation | 35 N.J.Super. 255,115 A.2d 625 |
| Parties | Mabel V. WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold WELCH, Defendant-Respondent. . Appellate Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Jack Pincus, New Brunswick, argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant.
Before Judges CLAPP, PROCTOR and HANEMAN.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an uncontested action for divorce based on extreme cruelty. The facts are set forth in the opinion of Judge Conford before whom the case was tried. Welch v. Welch, 34 N.J.Super. 197, 111 A.2d 793 (Ch.Div.1955). The State has an interest in actions for divorce and in the trial of such cases, particularly when they are Ex parte, the utmost care should be taken in order to determine the Bona fides of the action. Duerner v. Duerner, 142 N.J.Eq. 759, 761, 61 A.2d 307, 4 A.L.R.2d 1319 (E. & A.1948). The trial judge had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the appellant and her witnesses and consequently had a better opportunity than this court to pass upon their credibility. After examining the record and considering the reasons given by the trial judge for not accepting the truthfulness of some of petitioner's testimony, we are not disposed to disturb his finding that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action. See Rains v. Rains, 127 N.J.Eq. 328, 332, 12 A.2d 857 (E. & A.1940).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schlemm v. Schlemm
...Kress v. Kress, 1 N.J. 257, 62 A.2d 881 (1949); Sheehan v. Sheehan, 22 N.J.Super. 326, 92 A.2d 45 (App.Div.1952); Welch v. Welch, 35 N.J.Super. 255, 115 A.2d 625 (App.Div.1955); Pisciotta v. Buccino, 22 N.J.Super. 114, 91 A.2d 629 (App.Div.1952); Duerner v. Duerner, 142 N.J.Eq. 759, 61 A.2d......
-
Morrone v. Morrone
...has been held not to constitute extreme cruelty. Welch v. Welch, 34 N.J.Super. 197, 111 A.2d 793 (Ch.Div. 1955), affirmed 35 N.J.Super. 255, 115 A.2d 625 (App.Div.1955); Cruikshank v. Cruikshank, 115 N.J.Eq. 322, 170 A. 659 (E. & A.1934). While habitual drunkenness in itself is not a ground......
-
Wells v. Wells
...proofs. In re Backes, 16 N.J. 430, 433--434, 109 A.2d 273 (1954); Kress v. Kress, 1 N.J. 257, 62 A.2d 881 (1949); Welch v. Welch, 35 N.J.Super. 255, 115 A.2d 625 (App.Div.1955); Francis, J., dissenting, on other grounds, in Schlemm v. Schlemm, 31 N.J. 557, 585, 158 A.2d 508 (1960). Further,......
-
Nguyen v. Duong
...record that the parties had irreconcilable differences, there is no basis to overturn the judge's decision. See Welch v. Welch, 35 N.J. Super. 255, 255-56 (App. Div. 1955) (declining to reverse trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to establish extreme cruelty). Affirmed.I hereby cert......