If the circumstances, taken both singly and tqgether, admit of two interpretations, that interpretation which favors innocence should be adopted (Rerckmans v. Berclcmans, 17 N. J. Eq. 453: Culver v. Culver, 38 N. J. Eq. 163; Hurtzig v. Hurtzig, 44 N. J. Eq. 329, 15 Atl. 537; Luderitz v. Luderitz, 88 N. J. Eq. 103, 102 Atl. 661), and this rule our courts have followed in determining the evidence insufficient to establish adultery in many cases. Osborn v. Osborn, 44 N. J. Eq. 257, 9 Atl. 698, 10 Atl. 107, 14 Atl. 217; Brown v. Brown, 63 N. J. Eq. 348, 50 Atl. 608; Farrow v. Farrow, 70 N. J. Eq. 777, 60 Atl. 1103; Letts v. Letts, 79 N. J. Eq. 630, 82 Atl. 845, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1236; Earl v. Earl, 81 N. J. Eq. 444, 86 Atl. 940; Cooper v. Cooper, 82 N. J. Eq. 581, 91 Atl. 731; Id., 82 N. J. Eq. 060, 91 Atl. 732; McKonna v. McKenna, 84 N. J. Eq. 190, 96 Atl. 890. All the direct evidence to prove acts of familiarity to indicate illicit inclination, to prove opportunity and to prove adultery, comes from the lips of two white detectives and four negroes.
Mrs. Hart, the keeper of the rooming house, overheard the quarrel, and it is admitted that Clement paid her $2 to release the defendant's wearing apparel when she finally left. Upon the argument, counsel for the defendant urged that the view I took of the defendant's conduct in the case of Cooper v. Cooper, 82 N. J. Eq. 581, 91 Atl. 731, affirmed Id., 82 N. J. Eq. 660, 91 Atl. 732, ought to influence and control me in the present case. At a glance it will be seen that the circumstances are altogether different.
Bill by Frederick A. Cooper against Charlotte S. Cooper. Dismissed. Decree affirmed by Court of Errors and Appeals, 82 N. J. Eq. 660, 91 Atl. 732. Traverse A. Spraggins, of Jersey City, for petitioner.