Summary
In Reading v. Reading (N. J. Ch.) 5 Atl. 721, Vice Chancellor Bird held that, to a bill for divorce upon the ground of adultery, an answer setting up cruelty on the part of the complainant was a good answer.
Summary of this case from Rapp v. RappOpinion
09-18-1886
READING v. READING.
Mr. Schultz, for complainant.
On motion to strike out parts of answer.
Mr. Schultz, for complainant.
BIRD, V. C. The bill is for divorce for adultery by the wife. The motion to strike out rests on the ground of impertinence and irrelevancy. First. It is said the allegation in the answer that the wife had two children by a former marriage, and lived at Mauch Chunk, are irrelevant. Not so in this case, since the subsequent allegation is that the husband,after his marriage with defendant, endeavored to have sexual intercourse with one of the daughters. Second. It is said the allegations in the answer that the husband was cruel to the defendant, not only in his open solicitations to the step-daughter, but in beating the defendant, and in other cruel treatment, are impertinent and irrelevant, and, if true, constitute no defense. Not so; for how can the court grant a divorce to him who is himself liable to a charge which, if true, is the foundation for a divorce? It would be very inconsistent for the court to proceed according to the views of the complainant. It is true the acts set up by way of defense are not such as the acts of the wife that are complained of in the bill. The bill says the wife committed adultery. The answer says the husband committed various acts of cruelty. Under our statute, both are grounds for divorce,—one from the bonds of matrimony, the other from bed and board; and it seems most plain to me that, the legislature having placed these offenses nearly on the same level, the one can as well be pleaded by way of recrimination as the other. See Grant v. Grant, 36 N. J. Eq. 502; and, especially, 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. c. 5, on "Recrimination." If the husband, by his treatment of his wife, has been the cause of her downfall, he should not be permitted to acquire any legal advantages thereby. He does not stand before the court with clean hands.
I think the motion to strike out should be denied.