Opinion
02-18-1903
JEROLAMAN v. JEROLAMAN.
A. A. Clark, for petitioner. Samuel S. Swackhamer, for defendant.
Petition by Mary A. Jerolaman against William P. Jerolaman. Heard on petition, answer, and proofs. Decree for petitioner.
A. A. Clark, for petitioner.
Samuel S. Swackhamer, for defendant.
EMERY, V. C. The evidence in the case showed satisfactorily that the separation of the parties was legally chargeable to the cruelty of the husband. The acts of cruelty proved occurred for the most part, it is true, when the defendant was under the influence of liquor; but for many years, and up to the time of the separation, the condition was habitual. On the final act of cruelty on May 30, 1898, when the husband threatened shooting with a revolver which he had, and pursued his wife, who had taken it from his pocket, with a chair, and out of the house, she had him arrested. Since that time he has not been at the house, which belongs to the wife, and the separation has continued. The question in the case is whether the separation was continued and obstinate on his part for two years after that time. The separation in this case was, as I have stated, legally chargeable to the husband, and under the rule applied in cases of this character it was the duty of the husband to reform his habits, and after such reformation, and within the two years, seek out his wife, and apply to return, giving her reasonable assurances of the sincerity of his reformation, and of her probable safety in resuming marital relations. McVickar v. McVickar, 46 N.J.Eq. 490, 501, 19 Atl. 249, 19 Am. St. Rep. 422 (Pitney, V. C, 1890). Defendant insists that he has established this, but, in my Judgment, he has not. He has never himself been at the house, and one of the persons whom he sent to visit his wife—Mrs. Bowers, a clergyman's wife—on visiting the wife, and talking with her about the reconciliation, and the husband's previous conduct, advised the wife not to live with her husband, and returned to the husband, and told him she had given his wife this advice. The only other witness to prove the husband's reformation and desire to return was the man who kept the saloon or store and poolroom in which defendant is employed. This witness' evidence is not satisfactory. His statements as to the defendant's former drinking habits and his disposition when drunk are certainly opposed to the weight of evidence in the case, and, as the substance of his interview is denied by the wife, I am not willing to rely on his evidence as the basis for finding that the wife was in fault for not taking the husband back into her house. The evidence for defendant does show that the defendant at the present time, and for some time past, has not been drinking, but that the reformation commenced before the two years expired is not satisfactorily shown.
I will advise a decree for petitioner.