Opinion
07-21-1893
MEEKER v. MEEKER.
J. Prank Fort, for petitioner. H. W. Barrett, for defendant.
Bill by Anna G. Meeker against Jonathan T. Meeker for support and maintenance. Bill dismissed.
J. Prank Fort, for petitioner. H. W. Barrett, for defendant.
GREEN, V. C. This bill is filed under the twentieth section of the divorce act, for support and maintenance, on the ground that the husband, without justifiable cause, had abandoned his wife, or separated himself from her, and refused or neglected to maintain and provide for her. The wife left her home Wednesday, March 16, 1892, in the absence of her husband on business, and went to her father's, taking with her the most of the household furniture, and has continued to reside there until the present time. The husband, Immediately after his wife's departure, and at other times since, requested her to return to her home, and expressed his willingness and desire to provide and support her there, but refused tocontribute to her support if she persisted in remaining away from him. The bill is founded on the theory that the wife left her home and remained away in consequence of the extreme cruelty of her husband to her. To sustain this position, the burden of proof is upon her. At the time of the separation, the parties were living in Clinton avenue, in the city of Newark, where they had resided for some six months. The wife does not claim that her husband used personal violence while they lived at that place, except on one occasion, which was either on Saturday or Sunday night before she left. Her husband denies this. Her sister and her husband's cousin were living in the house at the time, and were both sworn as witnesses on the trial, but heard and knew nothing of the alleged cruelty at that time. After he returned from his trip, and found his wife gone, and the furniture taken away, he went to her father's, who lived in Riverdale, and desired her to return with him, telling her that he still retained the house; and on the solicitation of her family that he should make some provision for her to live separately he emphatically refused so to do, but spoke of his desire and ability to support her comfortably at his own home. His wife on this occasion, according to her father's statement, refused to return with her husband, saying that she could not go back and live with him, and would not do so, because they could not agree, and that he had driven her out. These offers of the husband were repeated, and down to and on the trial he professed his willingness to support his wife at his own home, imposing only the conditions that she would not associate with gentlemen whose acquaintance he did not approve of, while he had no objection to her sister or any lady friend being with her. Without considering whether an action under the twentieth section can be maintained in the face of such an offer, if sincerely made, I proceed to inquire what was the real reason of this separation; whether it was induced or made necessary by the husband's cruel treatment of the wife, rendering it dangerous to her personal safety or injurious to her health for her to continue longer under his roof, or whether it was for some other reason. Much evidence was given by the wife of acts of violence and cruelty committed while they lived in Crawford street, some year or so previous to the time of the separation. They occupied part of a house, in which the mother and sister of the husband and a lady boarder, who is now deceased, were also living. They had also a female servant, who came to the house once or twice a week until the latter part of their residence there, when she was employed and remained there permanently. The husband denies in the most positive manner all of the charges of cruelty made against him by his wife, except that on one occasion, in a moment of exasperation, he did slap her face. The mother, sister, and servant living in the house never heard of his using violence to his wife. He detailed and she also testified to acts on her part which are, in my mind, not susceptible of any rational explanation. She was found by her husband on one occasion, in her night clothes, lying on the floor in the corner of a cellar in the middle of the night; and on another, sitting in a dry goods box which was in the yard, in a similar condition of dress; and again in the corner of the alley. Her explanation of such conduct was that she did it because her husband drove her from the house, indicating that she acted in this way through fear of him. This explanation is, however, disproved by her own statement that she only waited until he asked her to come back, and whenever on these occasions he did ask her to come into the house, she immediately did so. This is, of course, entirely inconsistent with any theory that she acted as she did from personal fear. But whatever the truth may be with reference to this period of their lives, her conduct was such as to excite apprehension on the part of her husband and friends as to her mental condition, and she went home to her parents for a short time, where she apparently recovered her health.
If these charges of cruelty were satisfactorily proved, (which they are not,) they were all forgiven and condoned. On making arrangements for her return, and to relieve her mind from the suspicion that the presence of his mother and sister in his own house had been the cause of misunderstanding and unpleasantness between them, the husband took other quarters, separate from those members of his family, and their life seems to have been measurably pleasant and undisturbed by any outbreak for some time. Her sister says that she noticed no trouble at this time. Much against the desire and protest of the husband, the wife insisted upon taking boarders in their new home. He says he told her that he did not object to her sister or some female boarder, but that he was able to support her, and was willing to do so without any exertions on her part She, however, pleaded that the boarders would be company for her, and that she would prefer it, and he at last consented. One summer, also against his express wish, she took a house at Asbury Park, and kept boarders; but he at last consented, spending some three or four days of his vacation there. On the return from Asbury Park she continued the boarding house until they moved to Clinton avenue, when all the boarders, except a Mr. Linn, were given up. This step was at the urgent suggestion of the husband, who desired her to have no boarders, and no one at the house except her sister and his own cousin; but she was very strenuous, and at last successful in retaining the gentleman named. The husband is confessedlyof a Jealous disposition, and his wife was well aware of this trait of his character. Whether he had just reasons to be jealous of Mr. Linn's attentions to his wife or not it is unnecessary to consider. He had no suspicion that anything criminal had taken place between them, and never made any such charge against her; but the presence of Mr. Linn in the house, and his wife's treatment of him, were exceedingly unpleasant and aggravating to the husband, culminating at last in his telling her that Linn must leave the house. The husband was employed by the Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company as a eanvasser and salesman. His duties took him away during the early part of each month, but permitted him to make frequent returns to his home overnight, and always on Saturday night and Sunday. As he left home on the first Monday in January, he told his wife, if Linn was not out of the house when he returned on Wednesday, he would throw him out. That gentleman, however, remained at the house as long as it was corporeally safe for him to do so, and left on Saturday before the husband got home. After Linn left, Meeker says he wrote him a letter, telling him not to come between him and his wife, and told his wife about it The husband's suspicions were afterwards aroused that his wife was having interviews with the expelled gentleman, either on the street or somewhere else, which were in a measure confirmed by several incidents. The wife and her sister were very desirous of going to New York on Washington's birthday, and the husband told her that after he had attended to some business at the store he would be willing to go with them. This arrangement, however, was not satisfactory, and it vras then developed that it had been arranged, either before Mr. Linn's leaving the house or some time after that, that he was to take them to New York to visit the Eden Musee. Mr. Meeker peremptorily refused to permit them to do so, and again expressed himself as willing to take them, but they declined, and the party did not go. After dinner he gave her some money, and she went out, he going out with his cousin Mr. Van Ness, afterwards returning alone to the house. On this occasion his wife and her sister charge that he spoke of going with some fast women, and flourished a revolver, threatening to shoot them. They both explained such conduct by saying that he was under the influence of liquor. In fact his wife says that on all occasions when she charged him with violence he was intoxicated. Upon this point there can be no question but that she is mistaken, either from lack of judgment or from some other mental infirmity. The testimony of his employers and his acquaintances and himself indicates that he is a temperate man, no one being produced to testify who has ever seen him the worse for intoxicating liquor. As to his having a pistol, he always carried one in the wagon, in his trips in the country; it being a necessary precaution for him to take. Sometimes he would leave it in the wagon and sometimes he would bring it home. He denies having made any use of it in a threatening manner towards her or her sister. They both admit that when he was told to put it up he immediately put it into a drawer, and I do not believe that he used it in any way intentionally to terrify or to injure them. He admits that once in a fit of desperation, while living in Crawford street, when his wife was carrying on in the way indicated, he did say he had a mind to blow his own brains out,—a remark which I confess I can readily understand might have been made under the circumstances without Impugning his affection for his wife. On March 6th the wife and her sister got ready to go to Sunday school. The sister got on a car to ride, while Meeker noticed that his wife walked. His suspicions being aroused, he started out with his cousin, William Van Ness, and, after following her for some distance, found that she met Linn on a corner, and was talking for some time with him. They then separated, and he followed Linn, overtook him, and told him that this acquaintance must cease; that he would not allow him to come to his house unless he wanted to see him on business, saying to him: "You are causing trouble between a man and his wife, and I don't want you to cross my door sill again, and I don't want you to keep up this acquaintance with my wife;" and that if he did, he would have trouble. "I will give you fair warning, and if you have any business with me when I am at home, you can come there to transact it; but I will not allow you to come there in my absence, and not to cross my door sill again when I was not there." Her husband went away the following week, and returned on Saturday night, March 12th, but there was nothing more said about it. On Sunday his wife and her sister went to church, the latter returning about a quarter past 12, but his wife did not come in until after 1 o'clock. He says he asked her, "'Annie, what kept you so late?' and she said, 'I don't know that it is any of your business. Was you not dogging me?' and I said, 'No, I was not;' and she said, 'Well, you might have seen Mr. Linn and me together;' and I said, 'Mr. Linn don't bother me;' that I had seen Mr. Linn, and had said to Mr. Linn all that I thought it was necessary to say to him last Sunday; and then she said to. me, 'You ought to be ashamed of yourself, the way you talked to that man about me before another party,' and I said, 'Why so?' and she said, 'You have broken my heart, and his heart too;' and I said, 'It is a lucky thing I didn't break his neck.' That is just the remark that I made; and then she said she was no more my wife; and then I said, 'Well, now, Annie, you have been telling me often enough that you are going to leave me, but there is this one thing about it: that if you do leave me and go away fromme, you will go away for good. If you think more of Mr. Linn than me, why then you can please yourself; but I will tell you this: that when you do leave me, when you leave my home, then I am through with you,' and then she spoke up, and says I ordered her out of the house, and I says, 'No, I do not; but if you do leave under these conditions, then I am through with you; and then she says, 'When shall I go?' and I says, 'Well, now, you just please yourself. You have your own time to think of it, and you had better think of it well before you take any such step as that.'" In part of this he is corroborated by the testimony of the wife's sister, who says that Mrs. Meeker did make use of the expression with reference to Mr. Linn, "You have broken my heart, and his heart too." The wife says that on this Sunday her husband told her definitely to go, and that he choked her this night. He positively denies this charge. The sister and the cousin were both in the house, and heard no disturbance. The wife says but little about it, and I am inclined to the belief the statement is exaggerated. They had lived for six months in the house, as she admits, without any violence except this. It is evident from her testimony that the impelling cause of her leaving was the idea she had that he wanted to be rid of her, and ordered her out of the house. There was undoubtedly a loss of temper on both sides, and a serious quarrel. Mr. Meeker admits that he told his wife that if she could not give up Linn that she had better go, and she insists that he told her to go without qualification; and, further, that he had another woman that he was going to bring there. There is no evidence in the case to impeach his fidelity to his wife, and I am inclined to think that she is mistaken in this charge. That he did tell her to go there is no dispute, but it was in anger, and he relented. He certainly had a right to have his home free from the presence of any man who was objectionable to him, and it was her duty without complaint and without hesitation to have acceded to his reiterated demand that her acquaintance with Linn should cease. So far as Meeker was concerned, matters had reached a stage undoubtedly that he demanded, and his determination was irrevocable, that the acquaintanceship and interviews between his wife and Linn should terminate; and it was with the expression of such determination that he left his home on Monday. Whether it was pique or anger resulting from this last quarrel and demand of her husband that led her to take the action she has, I am at a loss to determine, but I do not believe from the evidence that it was from any fear of personal violence. It was on this theory that the suit was prosecuted and must be sustained, if at all. I am of opinion the petitioner has not made out a case.
The case presents this peculiar aspect: The wife, in answer to a question by the court, said as follows: "Question. When you wrote these letters, did you sincerely desire to become reconciled to your husband? Answer. Reconciled to him; yes, sir. I had not thought about it, but to be reconciled. I wanted to be on friendly terms with him. I was willing to live with him if he would stop such cruel treatment. If he would not, I wanted to be on such terms—friendly terms—that we could remember each other once in a while in kindly offerings on holidays and such like. But he would not hear of it, and so that is the reason I wrote so many letters." And her husband, on a like interrogatory, says that he would be willing to take his wife back, and provide for her comfort and support, permitting her to have all the female acquaintances she desired, but he was not willing that she should have male acquaintances who were unpleasant to him. It would really seem that, if the causes of disagreement were removed, these parties, who manifest sincere affection for each other, should be living happily together, instead of in a state of separation.