Opinion
06-24-1896
STIEFEL v. STIEFEL.
Geo. G. Tennant, for petitioner. Hudspeth & Puster, for defendant.
Petition by Isaac Stiefel against Kate Stiefel for a divorce. Dismissed.
Geo. G. Tennant, for petitioner.
Hudspeth & Puster, for defendant.
STEVENS, V. C. The petitioner and defendant were married in the city of New York on August 17, 1879. The petitioner was at that time only 16 years old, and the defendant only 15. A short time before the marriage they had had sexual intercourse, causing pregnancy. They were married with the knowledge and consent of defendant's parents, but without the knowledge of petitioner's parents, who were not informed of the marriage until shortly before the commencement of this suit They have never lived together. After the marriage, defendant continued to live at her parents' home until her mother's death,—a period of about 10 years. The child was born on February 1, 1880, and died within a year or two after defendant's mother died. On the mother's death, the family, consisting of several brothers and sisters, broke up, and defendant rented rooms in Fifth street, New York, keeping, she says, boarders. She lived there over a year and a half. After that she moved three or four times to different houses in New York City, and then rented a small house in Bayonne, where she lived about two years. From there she went back to New York. After that she lived for a short time In Greenville, then again returned to New York, and is now living in Jersey City. During all this time she supported herself at times by working in a store, at times by sewing or working for a milliner, and also by keeping boarders. It is admitted that because of her husband's wishes she never assumed his name. While her child lived, the petitioner contributed a small sum to his support. It is admitted by both sides that petitioner and defendant had no sexual intercourse until the death of defendant's mother. After that time the defendant says they had, occasionally. The petitioner denies it. It would seem from the testimony of both parties that, while they had little or no affection for each other, they were not unfriendly, and met frequently. The acts of adultery charged against defendant in petitioner's amended petition are first with Philip Bulkley and Adolph Brash in the summer of 1893, and then with one Murphy, otherwise called Schwarz, from April, 1892, to May, 1894, and during the months of October, November, and December, 1895, and January and February, 1896. The acts of adultery charged to have been committed with Bulkley and Brash are said to have taken place in Bayonne. The story is that Bulkley, who is a meat carrier in WashingtonMarket, and employed in the establishment in which petitioner is the bookkeeper, was invited by defendant and her friend Carrie Jennings to come over and see them at Bayonne; that he invited Brash, another carrier in the same establishment, to go with him; that they went to the house in which defendant was then living, took dinner there, and that afterwards the two men and the two women went together to a saloon on the corner of Twenty-Second street and Avenue D, and there had sexual intercourse in the two small sitting rooms back of the barroom. The story as told by the two men is not corroborated, and appears to me to be incredible. It is impossible to believe that any but the lowest and most shameless prostitutes could have participated in such an affair as these men speak of. There is no evidence to show that the saloon was of such a character, or so situated, as to make the place a suitable one for such an occurrence; and there is no evidence, outside of the testimony of the men themselves, to impeach the character of Miss Jennings, or to indicate that defendant herself was so lost to all sense of shame that she could have been the contriver of it. Miss Jennings and the defendant deny the story in to to, and there was nothing in the appearance or demeanor of either witness to suggest its truth. The two men testify that while at dinner at defendant's house they were waited on by Rebecca Sears, whom they said they identified as present in the court room. Rebecca Sears denies that they were there, or that she ever saw them. The decided weight of the evidence is against the petitioner on this branch of his case. The second charge of adultery has far more appearance of probability. The pertinent facts are these: Murphy's real name was Schwarz. Under that name he had been a frequent visitor at the house of defendant's mother during the latter part of her life. He styles himself a comedian, and he appeared in that kind of performances called "variety shows." He was, he says, commonly known as "the Dutch Murphy." He saw in defendant, who had a vivacious and humorous disposition, an aptitude for the stage, and he proposed a combination between them under the stage name of "Murphy & Fields." He taught her a few songs and dances, and showed her how to conduct a burlesque sparring match with him. They appeared from time to time in variety shows and benefits, given mostly in the city of New York and its vicinity. On one occasion they went with a troupe as far as Marietta, Ohio. At times he took up his residence in the house or flat rented by defendant, and she, too, was generally known by the name of Murphy; but whether Mrs. Murphy or Miss Murphy is one of the questions in dispute. The petitioner's case consists in proof of these facts. In addition he produces a witness—a Mrs. Lees—to prove that while living in Bayonne she on one occasion introduced Mr. Murphy to her as her husband. The evidence of this witness is, however, not supported, in respect of the words of Introduction used, by the recollection of her husband, who was present at the time, and it might have been the product of the not unnatural inference drawn by the witness from her belief as to the situation. Still the petitioner's evidence, standing alone, would, I think, warrant the conclusion that Murphy and defendant lived together in Bayonne as man and wife. It is noticeable, however, that this evidence (except that of Mrs. Lees) does not necessarily point to guilt. The case is devoid of testimony (such as is usual in such cases) going to show improper conduct. The parties are not represented by any one as indulging in any familiarity. No clandestine meetings are testified to. No proof is given that they ever occupied the same apartment. The inference of adultery committed at Bayonne is sought to be drawn merely from the fact that they lived in the same house, that they were known by some of the neighbors as Mr. and Mrs. Murphy, and that on the one occasion above alluded to defendant is said to have introduced Mr. Murphy to Mr. and Mrs. Lees as her husband. On the part of the defendant, we have, first, the evidence of the defendant herself, who admits that she had an occasional business connection with Schwarz, otherwise called Murphy, of the kind mentioned, but denies that she sustained any other relation to him. She says that he, with others, at different times, boarded at her house, for the purpose of helping her to earn a livelihood. In this she is corroborated by Schwartz himself; by Carrie Jennings, who says that she herself occupied the same room with defendant, and that Schwarz occupied another room, either alone or with some other boarder; by Rebecca Sears, the servant in the house; and by McCormick, a boarder for nine months, who testifies to having occupied the same room with Schwarz. It must be remembered, moreover, that Mrs. Stiefel was placed in a position of considerable hardship and difficulty. Her situation was abnormal. She was married to petitioner, who was under an obligation to take her to his home, and to give her adequate support, but who, for prudential reasons, did not do so. While he did not absolutely cast her off, he contributed almost nothing to her maintenance, and was himself, to some extent, responsible for her mode of life. It does not appear that after she became of age he ever offered to live with her and support her, or that she ever evinced unwillingness to do so. Under these circumstances, it would be straining things to say that she had not a right to take as a boarder the one friend who appears to have been willing to give her practical assistance, and that, if she did, she must, without direct proof, be deemed to be criminal. While the occupation she at times chose to follow exposed her to temptation, and while her close association with her stage partner was suchas to arouse suspicion, still, in her trying and peculiar situation,—a situation in part at least created by her husband,—I do not think I would be warranted in inferring adultery from the facts testified to by plaintiff's witnesses, explained as they are by defendant and her witnesses. The bill should be dismissed.