Opinion
07-02-1900
PROUDLOVE v. PROUDLOVE.
Action by Susie D. Proudlove against James D. Proudlove for a divorce. Bill dismissed.
The marriage in this case took place June 24, 1890. The parties lived together at a boarding house for three weeks. Then the petitioner went home to her parents, in Trenton, where she has since remained. The defendant husband came to the parents' house after the petitioner came back, and continued to come for "quite a while," the exact time not being stated. Then he stole some money from petitioner's mother, and the latter would not have him about any longer, but he remained in Trenton after that. He was afterwards arrested for larceny, but not on the mother's complaint, and was in prison "quite a little while,"—exact time not proven. Then he left Trenton without informing his wife of the fact. She supposes he left because "he was ashamed to remain in Trenton." He wrote to his wife several times shortly after he left Trenton, covering a period of six months. In his letters he asked her, "Wouldn't you like to come and travel with me?" telling her he was making lots of money but sending her none, and not stating what salary he was getting, nor that he had provided a home for her. The last two letters the petitioner did not answer. She had told him that at any time he could support her she was willing to go with him. He never had supported her, and never told her that he had a home for her. The master, assuming that the facts proven constitute a desertion, begins the period of desertion by the selection of October 1, 1897. There is nothing in the proofs which fixes this date, unless some definite significance be given to the phrase "quite a while"; for it was after two of these that the defendant absented himself from Trenton, because ashamed to stay, and, for six months after he left, continued to write to his wife as above stated. If the period of desertion began four months later than the date arbitrarily selected by the master, then the bill wasfiled before two years had expired. The proof on the point is too indefinite to sustain a decree. There is, however, a deficiency of more importance in the proofs. They do not show any desertion by the defendant The first separation was the act of the wife, going home to her parents. No proof of compulsion on the part of the husband. He visited her afterwards at her mother's house, until the latter refused to have him around. Then he left Trenton because ashamed to have been arrested for stealing, and, after he left, still invited his wife to travel with him, saying he had plenty of money. Of the untruth of this statement there is no proof. His statements to her show that he expected her to support him. It will be noticed that none of these acts of separation in any way indicate a purpose on the part of the defendant to abandon his wife and not to return to her. On the contrary, he seems to have desired at all times to have continued his marital relations, but at her charge and upon her money, but to have been prevented from actual continuance of those relations by extraneous circumstances, or by her unwillingness or inability to support him. There characteristics of the husband may have indicated his laziness, worthlessness, unthrift, dishonesty, or other like faults; but, until the happening facts show that the defendant has had for two years a willful and continued purpose to abandon his wife, the manifestation of the contemptible qualities noted affords no ground for a divorce. Neither separation nor nonsupport, of themselves, constitute desertion. Bourquin v. Bourquin, 33 N. J. Eq. 7. The last element in severing communications between the husband and the wife was her own act She did not answer his last two letters. She seems to have had no difficulty in obtaining knowledge of his whereabouts from his father, for the purpose of serving him with notice of proceedings in this case, which were served personally. The proofs are quite insufficient to support a decree, and, as ?they indicate the nonexistence of any cause for divorce, the bill should be dismissed.