Opinion
06-20-1890
PULLEN v. PULLEN.
W. Y. Johnson and Atty. Gen. Stockton, for complainant. Geo. O. Vanderbilt and W. O. Holt, for defendant.
W. Y. Johnson and Atty. Gen. Stockton, for complainant. Geo. O. Vanderbilt and W. O. Holt, for defendant.
Mrs. Pullen asks for a divorce from her husband on the ground of adultery with Mrs. Cornelia Lane, charged to have been committed on divers days in each of the months of the several years beginning with December, 1880, and extending to the filing of the petition, in 1885. The parties were married in 1872. They lived together until October, 1880, when Mrs. Pullen left her husband, and went to reside with her father. At the time of this separation she had given birth to two children, one of whom was then still living. In April after the separation she gave birth to another. Mrs. Pullen charges, and offers some proof to show, that the immediate cause of the separation was cruelty on the part of her husband towards her. Several acts of violence have been sworn to. Counsel for defendant resisted this proof of violence, insisting that it was in no wise relevant in asuit for divorce on the ground of adultery; but it was admitted for the purpose of establishing the alienation of the affections of the husband from his wife, and so lending some probability to the charge that his affections had gone out towards another. Although the alleged adultery did not first take place till several months after the charge of cruelty, I think a dispassionate consideration of the question must lead to the conclusion that if cruelty on the part of the husband towards the wife be established, and a separation soon thereafter occurs, followed in a short period of time by adultery, it would be error to overrule such proof of cruelty.
In the year 1879, Mr. and Mrs. Pullen moved upon the farm of one George Phillips, which they occupied until October of the year 1880, when Mrs. Pullen went to live with her father, Mr. Pullen continuing to reside on the same farm till April, 1881. In November or December of 1880, Mr. Pullen procured the services of Mrs. Lane as housekeeper for him. She continued to keep house for him until the year 1886, after this suit was begun, when she left him. Mrs. Pullen resided a short time with her father, and then a year or more with Prof. Riley, of New Brunswick, and in 1884 went to reside with the said George Phillips on his farm, and continued to reside with him until long after this suit was begun. In August, 1885, Mr. Pullen commenced an action of crim. COD. against the said George Phillips, to recover damages for the alienation of his wife's affections. In the month of September following, this petition for divorce was filed by Mrs. Pullen. As stated above, the petition charges the commission of adultery by Mr. Pullen during every month from the time Mrs. Lane went to live with him until the time of filing the petition. While other instances are alluded to, and efforts have been made to establish the crime at other times, I shall only allude to two as worthy of consideration. The first is that which rests upon the testimony of Mrs. Gussie Davison, and while they lived upon the Montgomery farm during the year 1881. On this farm is a large mansion house, and during that year, and at the important period referred to, there were two families, at least, composed of several persons, occupying the front and main part of the dwelling, while Mr. Pullen, together with Mrs. Lane and her daughter, aged nine or ten years, and his hired help, occupied the extension in the rear. The conduct which Mrs. Davison says aroused her suspicions, and which Mrs. Pullen charges as one of the foundations for suit, is thus introduced and detailed by Mrs. Davison: "Question. Were their actions like master and servant? Answer. Not at all; on the contrary. Q. What do you mean by on the contrary? A. It is not customary for a gentleman, with any one that he has in his employ, to demonstrate himself as he did, I don't think. I never have seen it done. I don't know. Q. Did you see any demonstration between them of that character? A. Yes, sir; I have. Q. Please state. A. I saw him about half clad, embracing her and kissing her. Q. When was that,—about what time? A. About twilight. I passed out from the back part of the building, and their door was open, and he was in the kitchen, in the doorway. The light was there, and it was lighted, and it was very plain to be seen. Q. In what position were they? A. She was in his arms. Q. How was Mr. Pullen dressed at that time? A. He only had one garment on; that is all. Q. What did the garment look like? A. I did not look long enough to see whether it was pants or drawers, or what it was. Q. Where was Mrs. Lane then? A. She was in his arms. Q. What did they do as you passed by? A. She jumped behind the door, naturally. Q. You passed on after that? A. Yes, sir; I passed on. I did not hesitate a moment. Q. How long before you returned? A. Perhaps five minutes. Q. When you returned, did you observe anything? A. I did not look towards the place at all. Q. Did Mr. Pullen and Mrs. Lane ever go out together to drive or ride,—go away together? A. Yes, sir; very frequently, and sometimes would come back the same night, and sometimes would stay away two or three days." Mrs. Davison also states that she heard Mr. Pullen and Mrs. Lane talking in a bedroom, and from their conversation she inferred that they were dressing. She adds that she called others to listen to the conversation, but as to this she is so fully contradicted as to fairly dispose of that much of the case in favor of the defendant. What of the kitchen scene above referred to, observed by Mrs. Davison in the twilight? The first inquiry naturally is, what have Mrs. Lane and Mr. Pullen to say about it? since it has not been shown that any others had an opportunity to make observations. They both emphatically deny the statement in every particular. The next inquiry is, supposing that there was an inclination to illicit intercourse, were the circumstances favorable to success without discovery? It will be observed, as above stated, that several persons were residing in the same dwelling. They had access to every part and parcel of the surrounding premises. Every day they frequently passed by the door into which Mrs. Davison looked when she saw the embraces indicative of an unlawful attachment. Besides this, one or more members of the other families was or were in the habit of calling upon Mrs. Lane for milk or to do other errands, and not unfrequently to spend more or less time with her in friendly conversation. Mrs. Lane's daughter, aged nine or ten, was residing with her. Mr. Pullen had a hired man. The time of day was such that in all probability all persons so enjoying a country home would be gathering together there, either for the evening meal or for retiring, and when the daughter and the hired man would most likely be about the dwelling for the same purpose. Mrs. Lane had been living there only about six months, and it is not too much to say that it is highly improbable that the first demonstration of an illicit attachment hinted at by any one should have been of the character described by Mrs. Davison. Such boldness is not only unnatural, but it seems to me in every sense to be withoutprecedent. There was no attempt at concealment, nor was there any regard for modesty, nor any respect for the feelings of others. It cannot be supposed that Pullen should have lost, not only all self-respect, but so utterly forgotten the peril in which he was placing his own reputation by so flaunting his bestiality before his landlady and her family, and others who resided under her roof. Looking further at the circumstances and conditions, according to Mrs. Davison's story, they had not modesty enough to conceal their wooing behind the door, but must display it in open view. Nor were they content with the simple twilight, but would give brilliancy to the scene by adding the lighted lamp. And as though he sought to make the exposure as glaring as possible, and his transgression of the foulest character, he strips himself of all his apparel but pants or drawers. Now, if the story of Mrs. Davison is believed, the conclusion is inevitable that Mrs. Lane, who had hitherto borne a good character, against whom not a breath of suspicion had ever been raised, who was introduced to Pullen by his own family friends, who had known her for many years, as a suitable housekeeper for him, and who had been living for several weeks under the observation of the Montgomerys, had at once become so depraved and so shamelessly debauched as thus publicly to submit to the embraces of Pullen. There has nothing been revealed in the history of his life to show that he had become so calloused or wicked, or had so little regard for the proprieties of life, as the story of Mrs. Davison would imply; and I think it will certainly be admitted that if a reputation for chastity for 38 years, as is the fact in Mrs. Lane's case, has been maintained, it is worthy of the highest consideration, and is not to be swept away by testimony so full of radical improbabilities, without clear and strong corroboration of facts or circumstances.
It ought to be stated that the path along which Mrs. Davison was walking was quite near to the kitchen door, and that along it she and other members of the Montgomery family were in the habit of passing and repassing to the rear of the dwelling at all times. The kitchen referred to was only 12 by 14 feet in dimensions. In it was a cook-stove, a table, and other furniture the stove was in front of and opposite the door, while the table stood behind the door. From this it would seem that the parties took an incredible amount of pains to show their attachment. It is difficult to believe the story of Mrs. Davison, because it involves so much rashness and unparalleled bestiality, since there is not a shadow of proof that both these parties had indulged, or were indulging, in any unlawful attachment towards each other whatever. A just and full comprehension of the case requires me to state that Mrs. Davison as a witness has been very seriously discredited. She says she related this circumstance to her sister-in-law Annie Montgomery the evening it occurred, but her sister-in-law swears she never told her: that she never heard anything about it until she heard Mrs. Davison had so testified in court, and this was after the commencement of this suit. Mrs. Davison says she often saw Mr. Pullen and Mrs. Lane ride out together, both at night and in the day-time, and they went alone. Mr. S. Gardner Montgomery, his wife, Annie Montgomery, and Mrs. Delia Braiden all deny this, saying they never saw her go out with Pullen unless her little girl was along, and then seldom. And in this they are sustained by Pullen, by Mrs. Lane, and by Mrs. Lane's daughter. And these disinterested witnesses had equally as good opportunities for observing as had Mrs. Davison. The testimony of witnesses who know Mrs. Davison best, clearly and fully establish that Mrs. Davison is not a reliable witness.
The next charge against the defendant is founded upon the statements of John E. Lacey, a detective who was employed by Mrs. Pullen for the purpose of discovering the relations between Mr. Pullen and Mrs. Lane. He says that he visited the Pullen house in the night-time on the 10th of September, 1885. I give the description in his own language: "The folks were all out. Mr. Pullen and the nigger were out in the barn with the boy, and he was passing in and out several times. And Mrs. Lane,—she lives in the house,—she and the little girl were in the kitchen or dining-room in the rear of the house, lower floor. About nine o'clock all came in from the barn, and sat there talking, and I approached the house, but the shutters were pulled down, and I could not see what they were doing. I could hear talking, and in the dining-room. I couldn't see anything there, and so I went around to the front of the house, and about thirty feet from the house. I stood along-side of a tree there, and about half past ten Mr. Pullen went up stairs to the second floor, —the south-east room there, in front; that is, fronting the road east towards Penns Neck. Mr. Pullen had been up there only a few minutes when Mrs. Lane went up, and Mr. Pullen prepared to undress. He was undressing when Mrs. Lane came in, and Mrs. Lane went around and closed the shutters, but the blinds were open, and I could see forms moving around, and after that she appeared to be undressing,—moving around there. After about five or ten minutes I couldn't see any more of Mr. Pullen, but I could see Mrs. Lane there moving around the room. I don't know where Mr. Pullen was,—gone to bed, I suppose; and then she turned the light down, —didn't put it out,—and I didn't see any more of her. Question. How did you distinguish Mr. Pullen when he went up stairs? Answer. It was very easy to see; the light was in the room, and it was dark outside, and persons in the room could be distinguished very easily. The next night I went to the back of the house in the same way. The folks were all inside. I could hear talking, and then I went around to the front of the house. I had Mrs. Pullen's brother along with me, and I got his back up to a tree, and I stepped on him, and climbed up into the tree. The tree was directly in front of the house,—the southeast corner,—with nothing between the house and the tree, and I got up there and watched the house from the tree. Thedog came out, and Mrs. Pullen's brother skipped. Mr. Pullen came out, and stood right underneath the tree, quieting the dog, and then he went inside in the house, 'and at about 10:45 Mrs. Lane came into the parlor, and closed the shutters on that floor, and in the mean time Ralph Pullen went upstairs to his bedroom, and as soon as Mrs. Lane got through she went up stairs in the same room with Mr. Pullen. This was the same room that they went in the previous night, and Mr. Pullen was moving around there, and he undressed and got into bed, and Mrs. Lane, after a few minutes, closed the shutters again. The blinds were open, for I could see forms inside, and she in about ten minutes turned down the light low again; and that is all I could see that night." On the next night, which was Saturday night, he went to the Pullen house again. He introduced himself as an official from the Northern Home for Boys in Philadelphia, and that he had called to see the Bowen boy, and inquire after his health, as he was from that home, when they invited him to spend the night. He says that he was shown to bed by Pullen in a bedroom on one side of the hall, and that soon after Pullen went into a bedroom on the other side, and was followed in a few minutes by Mrs. Lane. He heard them talking in that room for about 15 minutes, when all was quiet.
Although Mr. Lacey speaks with great confidence and assurance, as the testimony stands before me I am obliged to conclude that he did not see Mr. Pullen on either Thursday or Friday nights. Witnesses who could not possibly be mistaken as to his identity, and who rely upon incidents that sustain them in fixing the time referred to so decisively that if in error they have not only all committed willful perjury, but were subject to most certain exposure and condign punishment therefor, have testified that they were with him several miles away during the time that Lacey swears that he saw him in the bedroom with Mrs. Lane at her own home. The Monmouth county fair was held during the week, and was expected to close on Thursday, but did not until Friday, because of the heavy rain on Thursday. Mr. Pullen went to the fair on Thursday, expecting to see a horse owned by one Applegate trot. This Applegate was connected by marriage with some member of the Pullen family. On the 10th, Ralph L. Pullen went to Englishtown, and from there proceeded with a brother and brother's wife and a Mrs. Applegate to the fair at Freehold, about 20 miles distant from Ralph L. Pullen's home. On account of rain, there was no trotting that day, the 10th. Ralph L. Pullen, with his brother Marshall and his wife, returned to Marshall's house, and it rained so hard he stayed there all night. The next day Ralph and his brother Marshall returned to the fair. The Applegate horse was not put on the course until almost dark. Ralph Pullen and his brother Marshall went to Englishtown, and remained there all night Friday night. The next morning, 20th September, Ralph L. Pullen goes from Englishtown to his brother Marshall's, where he has left his own horse and wagon, which he gets, and proceeds at once to his home, which place he reaches between 11 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon. These statements are established by the testimony of Marshall Pullen, Mrs. Gertrude Pullen, Ritie Applegate, Davis Applegate, Jacob Applegate, Ralph L. Pullen, Mrs. Lane, and Edward Phillips. The first five spoke of his being in the county of Monmouth both Thursday and Friday nights; the others of his absence from his home in the county of Mercer during the same periods, and of his return to his home near midday on Saturday. As already intimated, there is nothing to justify me in rejecting the testimony of all these witnesses, and of accepting the statement of Lacey as more worthy of belief. It will not be improper for me to remark that I find nothing in the almost unprecedented mass of testimony before me to impeach the character of Mrs. Lane for chastity. Many efforts were made to show improper relations between her and Pullen on other occasions than those above referred to, but they were not sustained in the slightest degree. Her situation at Pullen's was not only lawful, but proper and consistent. He had a right to employ her as his housekeeper, and she had a right to be so employed. Not only is there no disgrace to be attached to either, but of itself it does not open the slightest ground of suspicion. Were such relations to be just grounds for criticisms, many homes made comfortable, if not hallowed, by the presence of women, would be rendered miserable, indeed broken up. It certainly does not become Mrs. Pullen, the petitioner in this cause, to attempt to strengthen her charge of adultery against her husband by the fact that he was living for four years or more with Mrs. Lane in his employ, managing his household affairs; since Mrs. Pullen herself went into the employ of George E. Phillips, managing his household affairs, in 1884, and continued in his employ for several years thereafter. Especially is this worthy of consideration since Mr. Pullen charged that Phillips was the cause of difference between himself and his wife, and that because of his conduct they became estranged in feeling, and finally separated. I will advise that the petition be dismissed.