Opinion
04-08-1899
WRIGHT v. WRIGHT.
H. B. Twombly, for complainant. William H. Morrow, for defendant.
Bill by Frank Wright against Anna L. Wright for divorce. Dismissed.
H. B. Twombly, for complainant.
William H. Morrow, for defendant.
PITNEY, V. C. This is a bill for divorce by husband against wife, based upon the alleged desertion of him by the defendant. The case is a painful one, and I have found it difficult of solution. Most of the leading facts are not in dispute, and may be stated briefly as follows: The parties were married on August 22, 1805. Prior to the marriage the complainant was living and keeping house at Summit, N. J., his family consisting of his mother, as the head; his sister, a young woman 17 or 18 years old; and his brother, a lad of 14 or 15. He was engaged in the business of publishing a local newspaper at Shorthills, three miles east of Summit, on the line of the railroad, and his brother and sister worked for him in his office. The defendant, whose maiden name was Larison, lived with her parents at Hackettstown, Warren county, on the line of the railway that passes through Shorthills, Summit, Morristown, Dover, and thence to Hackettstown. Complainant was two or three years under 30, and defendant was three or four years over 30, at the time of the marriage. The wedding took place before the bride had fully prepared to make her home with her husband, and she informed him that she must have a few weeks after the marriage, at her parents' home, to enable her to make the usual preparations in the way of clothing, and to gather some few articles of personal paraphernalia and pieces of small furniture. They took a wedding trip of five or six days in the Catskills, and returned to his house, in Summit. She remained there with him until the 14th of September, when he escorted her to her parents' house, where she stayed until the 14th of October, being engaged during that time in making the preparations above mentioned for permanent residence in her husband's house. She returned under her husband's escort to his house on the 14th of October, and lived there with him until the 18th of November, when she left and went to her parents for a visit, and for recuperation in the way of health and strength, in which she had suffered since her marriage. She returned to his house on the afternoon of the 9th of December, stopped there a day and two nights, and on the 11th of December went to Newark to do some shopping for her mother,and stayed there overnight with a friend, and returned to her husband's house on the afternoon of the 12th of December, and left on an evening train without seeing him to speak to him. Since then she never has lived or cohabited with him, although since that time they have had two interviews at his place of business at Shorthills,—one on the 27th of January, and the other on the 10th of March, 1896. He has never visited her at Hackettstown, but considerable correspondence passed between them between the 18th of November, 1895, and the 14th of April, 1896. On the 10th of March, 1896, after the interview of that day, she removed her belongings from his house to her home, in Hackettstown.
Two questions arise out of the case, the solution of which will require an examination of the evidence somewhat at length: First. Was she in any degree justified or excusable, by reason of any conduct on the part of her husband or any member of his immediate family, in leaving his house on the 12th of December? Second. If the husband or any members of his immediate family were in any degree responsible for her so leaving, has he used proper means and endeavors to induce her to return and live with him? The counsel of the wife asserts the affirmative of the first question, and the negative of the second.
In entering upon the task of examining the evidence, I will state at the start that there is substantially no conflict of evidence as to any of the actual facts or occurrences, but there is considerable conflict as to acts, conduct, and conversations between the parties hereto, and between the defendant and the members of the complainant's family, to wit, his mother and sister.
Both parties profess and appear to be sincere Christians, are of irreproachable character, and there is not a trace of any evidence of any improper conduct on the part of either before or since their marriage. They had been acquainted since 1890. Both moved in about the same social circles, and manifest about the same degree of culture and education, although the wife had probably been accustomed to a rather more expensive style of living than her husband had been able to afford. When she first knew him he was a journeyman printer, with his mother and sister and brother somewhat dependent on him, struggling to make a living and save something, and I infer from all the evidence that he was a little inclined to be penurious,—more so than circumstances required. At his marriage he was the proprietor of the newspaper which he published, was the owner of a double house and lot at Summit, which cost $4,000, one part of which he rented out to a tenant, and the other he occupied. It was, however, subject to a mortgage of $2,700, given the year before, and held by a building-loan association, which he had been paying and was still paying at. the rate of $444 a year, which is at the rate of $292 per year above the interest, so that at the time of the marriage it could not have amounted to more than $2,400. Besides that he had, a few weeks prior to the marriage, purchased and paid $500 on account of an adjoining vacant building lot, the title to which he had put in his mother; and he had procured a policy of insurance on his life for her benefit for $5,000, which had been running for three years or more. His total income from his newspaper, the rent of his house, after paying taxes, etc., but not including the monthly payment to the building-loan association, was between $1,300 and $1,400. He kept no servant in his household. His mother did most of the work, with such assistance as her daughter could give mornings and evenings. His sister and brother worked for him on his newspaper. He paid his sister a salary of $4 a week, out of which she paid $1.50 a week for her board, and he paid his brother a salary of $2 a week, out of which he paid $1 a week for his board. So far as the direct evidence goes, the defendant had always lived at home with her parents, and had been accustomed to do a part of the ordinary housework in her parents' house. In one part of the evidence her husband speaks of her having been employed at one time in Newark. The character of the employment was not shown. She had friends and acquaintances there. The parties met at Morristown, where she had a cousin living, at the house of a third party, Mrs. Guerin, a witness in the cause. She also had a brother living at Madison, engaged in business there. The husband swears that he made his wife fully acquainted with his pecuniary circumstances before she married him, but in this he is not quite accurate, as will be seen presently. She did not know of the life insurance for the benefit of his mother, and she did not know in whom the title to the house and lot was vested. He states that before the marriage his wife, having been informed that he had bought the vacant lot in the name of his mother, inquired whether the title of the double house and lot, in one of which houses he lived, stood in his name, and that he declined to inform her, even though she threatened to break off the match if he did not. He said he thought it was something that she ought not to have inquired about; and, according to his account, this became the subject of feeling between them after they were married. He told her before the marriage that if he died he would be worth $5,000, but did not tell her that for that purpose he relied upon his life insurance which stood in his mother's name, but swears that he subsequently entertained the intention of having one-half, at least, of it put in the name of his wife. I think she swears that she never heard of the life insurance until after they were married. She had been at his house at Summit, and knew that she was expected to live with his mother, sister, and brother; but, as I understand the evidence, the question whether she was to take charge of the house, and be the head of it, was not determined. He swearsthat he told her before the marriage that he expected her to take charge of the housekeeping, but evidently he had not made definite arrangements to that end with his mother, for he swears that when his wife came to stay permanently—October 14th—he proposed to his mother that his wife should take charge of the housekeeping, and his mother at first demurred, but finally consented. It is not asserted, and there is no reason to suspect, that she deceived him as to her age, or concealed from him anything which a man proposing to marry a woman was entitled to know about her. The case discloses no cause for either surprise or disappointment on his part. Nor is there any assertion on his part that she was quarrelsome or vixenish in her temper, and disagreeable in that respect. In fact, I may say here that I sought anxiously during the hearing of the case for some real, solid reason why these young people should not live together happily, and was unable to find any, unless it be the difficulties set up by the wife, which will appear as we proceed with the evidence. Both the counsel assured me privately that absolutely nothing had been concealed.
While in the Catskills on their wedding trip, the wife overexerted herself, in taking a very long walk up the mountain and down again, and felt the effects of it When they were approaching his home in the railway train, the subject of who should take charge of the house was broached, and she told him that she would not take charge or do the work of the house. When they sat down to the first meal in the house his mother offered his wife the head of the table, which she pleasantly declined (as, indeed, under the circumstances, I think she ought to have done, even if she expected ultimately to take charge), and sat by the side of her husband. It must be remembered that she considered that occasion only a visit to her husband's house, since she was not then prepared to stay permanently. A disputed matter of evidence may here be stated, and that is, what part she actually took from the first, and during the whole of her residence with her husband, in the keeping of the house. The husband and his brother were in the habit of taking a train for Shorthills at about 7 o'clock, and necessarily had an early breakfast. The husband's mother was in the habit of getting up to prepare that meal, with the assistance of her son, the complainant, and his sister, and, for the purpose of insuring punctual rising, kept an alarm clock in her room. That alarm clock was, on their arrival from their wedding trip, transferred to the room of the defendant and her husband. She swears that she got up nearly every morning, Sundays excepted, and assisted in getting the breakfast; that her husband built the fire, and did such work towards it as a man could do, and she did the rest. This is denied by the husband and by his mother and sister. But, taking their circumstantial account of what occurred, in connection with hers, I think that she has told the substantial truth about it. At any rate, I am satisfied that she did quite as much work as she was able to do. She remained there, as we have seen, until the 14th of September, when she went home, under her husband's escort, to make the preparations before mentioned for the final coming to her husband to live, and returned to Summit, as we have seen, on the 14th of October. Up to this time, I think, nothing serious had happened. But after that she swears that the mother and sister both made remarks to the effect that she ought to do more work, and that she was not doing her share of the work of the house. She swears that she did—in addition to assisting in preparing meals—sweep the dining room, help wash the dishes, and all that sort of thing, did not do the washing, but did the ironing of all her clothes and her husband's shirts and collars. I am satisfied that she was not able to do any more work than she did. In fact, I am entirely satisfied that married life wore upon and weakened her. Her husband was a stout healthy, robust man, and she was small in frame, and naturally rather frail and weak, weighing less than 120 pounds. When she arrived in Hackettstown the middle of September she consulted a female physician, and was advised that she was in a somewhat serious condition, and would require physical treatment several times a week for three or four months, and that in the meantime she must not do any heavy work. This was reported to her husband at Hackettstown when he came to bring her home, the night before she actually returned. But she says that no means were taken by her husband to give her this treatment, except the provision of a syringe. He swears that that was all the treatment that she required, and that she did not ask for or expect to be treated by a physician. The wife swears that on the very night of her return—October 14th—the mother told her that she (the mother) had told her husband that, if she could not work, she had better get out. The mother denies this. The wife swears that there was immediately upon her return in October considerable disagreeable discussion between her and her mother-in-law, and between her and her husband, as to the management of the house. From her evidence I infer that she really preferred to manage the house herself. The discussion included the amount of work which each person should do, and according to her story the mother-in-law was dissatisfied with the amount she had done when she was there on her first visit in September; and the wife preferred, of course, either to have the whole of the charge of the house, or to have nothing to do with it. But this was not assented to. The mother suggested that the result would be a division of the family. The wife proposed that her husband should pay board to his mother for himself and herself. This he refused to do, andthe husband proposed that he should find a home for his mother near by. This the wife swears she said she disliked to do, and said she was unwilling to turn her mother-in-law out of the house, but proposed to her husband that he and she should occupy apartments somewhere else. At another time she suggested that her husband should provide board for his mother near by. Several of the expressions which she attributes to the mother, even if expressed in kind language, were disagreeable and galling to a young married woman. In fact, the subject was difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, of satisfactory treatment. The husband and mother expected the wife to come there and occupy a subordinate position in the family, and do a share of the work of the house, while the mother was the housekeeper, manager, and holder of the purse; or, in the alternate, that the wife should assume charge and do all the work, with such assistance as the mother could give. This she was physically unable to do, and I think the probabilities are, judging from all the evidence, that she would not have been intrusted with the house money. According to the wife, these disagreeable discussions continued for two or three days, and developed much unkindness on her husband's part, and then she finally asked him what he had decided as to her assuming the position of head of the house and the duties of housekeeper, and that he decided that she should not do so, but permit his mother to continue in that position for two or three years, till the wife should have acquired more experience. The husband does not deny this directly, but says that he consulted with his mother about it, who at first objected, and afterwards consented, to the wife's taking charge, and that his wife told him that his mother expected her to do a part of the work, and that she should not care to take charge. She did not, in fact, take charge of the house, or do any marketing or handle any of the housekeeping funds.
Things went on in this way until November 13th. On the afternoon of that day she dressed herself in one of her best gowns, which would be liable to be soiled if she did any kitchen work in it, and after dinner she sat in the dining room with her husband and his mother and sister. She did not, on that occasion, by reason of the condition of her dress, assist in washing the table dishes, and she heard his sister say to her mother: "It is too bad, Ma. You have all the work to do." She said that she had heard her make that remark several times, and that she then, in the presence of her husband, told his sister that it was not so; then his sister said that she supposed she, the sister, had said what was not true; and the wife replied that, if she asserted that her mother had all the work to do, she did say what was untrue. This occurred about prayer-meeting time, and the wife was expecting to go. She went upstairs on a short errand, and when she came down her husband and his sister had gone to prayer meeting without inviting her to accompany them. Shortly after their return she retired to her room, feeling very badly on account of the few unpleasant words that had passed between her and her sister-in-law, and the fact that her husband had gone to the meeting without her. Her husband came up about bedtime, and found her in bed. He retired, and she commenced to talk to him about the affair, and tried to explain. She says she wanted to explain about her not helping with the work that evening, and that he manifested temper, and would not permit her to make the explanation. She says: She told him that she supposed she ought not to have spoken in that way to his sister, but that she did not feel like apologizing for it just then, and that he said no one could live with her. (He swears that she offered to apologize to his sister, and that he advised her against it. In fact, she did apologize the next morning.) That thereupon she asked him if she should go home. That he said it would not be well for her to go home against his protest. She replied that he had not protested. Then he said, "Well, I do protest now." Then she said there was no conversation for some minutes, and then she said to him: "Frank, would you be happier if I should go home and let you get a divorce?" and his answer was: "That is something I will have to think about. It is endurance on one side and disgrace on the other." She says: "I told him it would be very hard for me to part from him. That was all the conversation that night." Now, the husband admits that he used the expression that it was a question with him of endurance on one side and disgrace on the other, in connection with a proposition of his wife to go home and let him get a divorce, but denies that he said nobody could live with her. In other words, he admits that he said it was a question of endurance to live with her, on one side, and disgrace of getting a divorce from her, on the other; and this was tantamount to saying that it was difficult to live with her. When pressed to state what the "endurance" was,—that is, what there was in her conduct or behavior that rendered his living with her a matter of endurance,—he failed to give any other reason, except that for many nights she had kept him awake, as she did that night, nagging him to tell her whether the title to the house and lot where they lived stood in his name or in that of his mother, and that he refused to tell her, because he thought she had no right to know; and in further explanation said that, before Informing her as to the situation of the title of the house and lot, he wished to ascertain the reason for her desiring the Information, because he supposed "there was some underhanded business about it." But he did not explain, and it is not easy to understand, what "underhanded business" there could be in a wife asking her husband in whose name the title to the house in which they lived stood. She deniesthat she asked him more than once after they were married in whose name the title to the house stood. Now, right here, on the husband's own story, I feel bound to say that he was quite in the wrong. These people married after they had passed the days of childish or romantic love; and it was no more than prudent for the wife, before marrying him, to inquire as to his pecuniary condition, and especially as to the title of the homestead, since a few weeks before the marriage he had informed her, as he swears, that he had Just paid $500 in cash on a lot purchased for his mother in his mother's name. He says that he told her all about his pecuniary condition, but it is plain from his own statement that he did not, that he concealed from her the fact that the life insurance was in the name of his mother, and he refused to tell her whether or not the title to the house and lot was in his or his mother's name. But, whatever may have been his duty before marriage, after marriage she had a clear right to know the true facts. At any rate, his excuse for not telling her was, I think, unworthy of him, or of any husband, and entirely insufficient. But, as I have said, she denies that the matter of the title to the house was the cause of the dispute that night; and I believe her to this extent,—that she gave the true version of the whole affair, namely, that it arose about the amount of housework she did, and that she made a sharp remark to his sister which she felt might make trouble. And here I may say it is quite plain that the complainant divided his affections between his wife and mother and sister, and that he manifested such a degree of affection for his mother as to excite his wife's jealousy. She swears that he was unwilling to take and act upon the position that his paramount affection was due to his wife rather than to his mother, and I think she is correct in that statement. She swears that he had treated her coolly for a week before that, and had not kissed her in that time. She swears that she felt very much hurt after he made the remark that it was a question of endurance on the one side and disgrace on the other, and that she slept little or none all night, and spent most of the time in crying; that the treatment received from her husband and his mother and sister wore upon her feelings to such an extent that she could endure it no longer, and on the 18th of November she left for her home on a visit. It is here to be remarked that she took none of her belongings, but left her trunks, of which she had two, and took simply clothing enough to last her for a few days, and that on arriving at home she found, by weighing herself, she had lost from 10 to 12 pounds in weight, which was a very large percentage of her usual weight, which was small at best I ought to have said that on the way home she stopped at Madison and visited her brother, and also at Morristown to visit her cousin.
I stop here to remark that I think the wife was, to say the least, excusable in going home as she did on that occasion, as well on account of the state of her health as also on account of the behavior in general of her husband, and in particular on the occasion just referred to. I am satisfied that she did not at that time contemplate a permanent separation, but did intend to try by all fair means to induce him to give her an establishment separate from his mother and sister. And I further think that she was entirely justified in asking for such separate establishment. It is common knowledge that it is difficult for a family composed as was this to live harmoniously in the manner in which they attempted to live. And, notwithstanding the amiable appearance on the stand of the mother and sister, I am satisfied that owing partly to the natural indisposition of the mother to give up the head of the house and divide the affections of her son, and partly to her feeling that her son was poor and that her two children were working for their living, and that her daughter-in-law ought also to work, and to, perhaps, an honest belief that she did not do her share of the work, the mother did in various ways manifest her dissatisfaction with her daughter-in-law. Owing partly to this manifestation on the part of the mother-in-law, and partly to the fact that the son seemed to sympathize with his mother more than with his wife, the wife was, in reality, decidedly unhappy, without any serious fault on her part. On the 21st of November she wrote her husband a most affectionate letter, without anything in it of complaint, although she stated her loss in weight,—in fact, such a letter as a loving husband ought to feel happy in receiving from his wife,—but received no answer. I insert it at length: "Dear Frank: As I had hoped, the conductor let me stop at Madison, and I spent several hours very pleasantly there. Will was suffering with his first attack of neuralgia. It affected one side of his head and his eyes. Another conductor let me stop at Morristown, so I saved the expressage on the package as well as had the pleasure of seeing them all at Carrie's. I remained with them until the train, leaving there at 7:32. I asked for a new time-table at Summit, so supposed I had the latest When the conductor came for my ticket I was informed that the train I was on stopped at Dover, and I would have to wait 45 minutes, and then I could take one on the main line. I obtained a new time-table there, and found I had 51 minutes to wait Fortunately for me, a young lady acquaintance came to meet her sister, so we had a chat for fifteen or twenty minutes. They were surprised when I walked into the house. Papa had been over to all the trains before that, and had given up expecting me. They feared I was not well enough to come. I was weighed Tuesday. I weighed 105 pounds,—a loss of ten pounds. Besides, the difference in clothing was nearly two pounds, making a loss of 11 3/4 poundsin five weeks. I am feeling better already, and how I do eat and sleep! I wrote directions on Mat's letter, and left it on the bureau for you. I received the letters from Aunt Alice that you sent me. I looked, but did not find a word from you with it. They took Cousin John home last Sat He had been sick a week. It was rather dangerous to take him, as he was bordering on pneumonia. We have not heard since how he is. What an excitement the post-office robbery must have made at Summit! I think there was something else 1 intended to tell you, but I cannot remember what it was. I put all the little things from the bureau in the closet, so they would not be in the way when they want to sweep and dust. Affectionately, Anna." Pressed on the stand to give his reason for not answering this letter, he stated finally that "I meant my wife should feel that I wanted her with me, that I was displeased to have her go away, that I would prefer to have her with me. Therefore I didn't write her a letter." I think it will strike most persons, as it did me, that such a mode of inducing an absent wife to return was not an efficient one, and not the one usually adopted by a loving husband; and it was particularly ill adapted to produce the result in this instance, when but a few days before his wife left he had expressed to her that he was balancing between the "endurance" of her society and the "disgrace" of a divorce. One would naturally suppose that, if he really wished his wife to return, he would at once meet an affectionate letter with one in the same strain.
Some time about the 1st of December she bought an additional piece of furniture, and had it sent to her husband's house, at Summit, where it arrived about the 7th of December. She made her arrangements to return, having determined in her own mind, as before remarked, to make an effort to induce her husband to give her a home separate from his mother and sister. In fact, she determined to renew her previous efforts in that direction. With such determination to renew the subject and press it, she left home on Saturday, December 7th, visited her aunt in Brooklyn, where she spent Saturday and Sunday nights, and on Monday, December 9th, reached Summit, was met affectionately by her husband, and spent that night, the next day, and Tuesday night there. She swears that she had prepared a letter to her husband, discussing the matter of living separate from his mother and sister, and urging him to gratify her in this respect, and carried it with her to Summit, to be delivered at a favorable moment. She says that she did not immediately broach the subject to him, deterred somewhat by his affectionate and cordial manner. But she did not abandon the idea,—such is her story,—and on Tuesday, December 10th, packed in the two trunks she had in her room various articles such as could be packed in a trunk, but not all of her belongings. Some of the articles were quite in capable of being stored in her trunks. This she swears she did in anticipation of a separate home which she hoped to nave with her husband. Her husband occupied the room with her on the evening and night of the 11th after this packing, so she swears, and must have observed the fact and the extent of it before he left the next morning. In this I am satisfied she is correct She left on Wednesday, December 11th (some time after her husband left for business), to go to Newark to do some shopping for her mother, and, having done that stopped overnight with a friend there, where, as we have seen, she had several friends, who were all, as will appear hereafter, known to her husband. She told her husband before she left that she was going to stay overnight, and he assented thereto. On the morning of December 12th, as she was expected home by her husband on that afternoon, he locked the door of their room, and took the key with him when he went to his business, telling his mother to inform his wife when she came that he would explain why he had locked the door. He swears that he inferred from this packing of trunks that she intended to leave him at once, and that he locked the door of the bedroom for the purpose of preventing her from so doing. But there was nothing in her conduct manner, or language on that occasion to warrant the supposition that she thought of leaving him at that time. On the contrary, the indications were that she was quite satisfied. Then, too, the sending of the chiffonier indicated that she returned on the 9th with the intention of remaining. He swears that he first observed that the trunks had been packed after she had left for Newark, and not the previous evening. In this I am satisfied that he is in error. She reached Summit about 5 o'clock on December 12th, went to the house, saw her mother-in-law, started to go upstairs, and her mother-in-law then told her it was of no use to go up, because the door was locked and Frank had the key. The defendant asked why that was so, and her mother-in-law told her that Frank would explain when he came home. Unwilling without an actual experiment to believe that the door was locked, she went upstairs and tried it, and found it was as stated. She came down and asked her mother-in-law why it was locked, and her mother-in-law repeated that Frank would explain when he came home. The question was repeated several times, and received the same answer. She then said that if that was so she had better leave. She felt hurt, insulted, and grieved, was angry, and showed it. The mother-in-law said she had better not go; that Prank would explain all when he came. She said she would go to the station, and would probably see him when he came in the train. She went to the station, intending to take a train which left at 6:22 p. m. for the West leading to her brother's in Madison. Her husband arrived on a train at 5:57, but whichwent no further than Chatham, short of Madison. She was in the station when his train arrived, and saw him and his sister after they had left the train, but not until they had got beyond call on their way to his house. She intimates, however, that she did not care to see him in the company of his sister, but desired a private conversation with him. He went to his home, about five minutes' walk distant, inquired for his wife, and was informed that she had gone to the station. He knew of the train going west at 6:22, and had ample time to return to the station to see her before it left, but did not do so. I must believe that his mother told him that his wife felt angry at being locked out of the room, and went to the station for the purpose of leaving. Pressed to explain why he did not return to the station to see his wife, he said he was excited, and thought she would return without his going for her. That explanation is inconsistent with itself. If he thought she would return, there was nothing to be excited about. The only thing that would excite him would be the idea that she was going to leave, and, if he wished to stop her, he should have started at once for the station. He are his dinner, and immediately went out and consulted counsel upon the situation. The next morning, acting under advice of counsel, he went to Newark, to the persons whom he knew to be his wife's friends; supposing, as he said, that she had gone there. He also went to Brooklyn and saw her aunt. He did not seek her at her brother's, at Madison, or at her parents, in Hackettstown. Why, he does not state, except that he supposed naturally that she had gone to Newark to her friends there. She swears that on that evening of December 12th she went to her brother's, in Madison, stayed there a short time, and went on by another train to her cousin's, in Morristown, and stayed all night, and the next day, the 13th, went back to her brother at Madison, and asked him to go with her to see her husband and talk with him about their affairs; that her brother had no clerk, and could not leave his business. She then went to Newark to see if she could get one of her friends there to go with her to talk to her husband, and then found that he had already been among them, informing them that they must not harbor her; that his home was her home, and he would not be responsible for her debts. There is no proof that he did give such oral notice to her friends in Newark, but he does not deny that he did so, though he had an opportunity to make such a denial. Discouraged in her intention of an early interview by reason of her husband's notice to her friends that he would not be responsible for her debts, she went home to her parents, in Hackettstown; arriving, as the evidence shows, on the evening of Monday, the 16th. There she found two letters from her husband,—one, which reached there after she left for Summit, dated December 8th, in these words: "Dear Anna: I inclose a letter that Will overlooked last night while sorting the mail. A piece of furniture came for you yesterday. I presume it is your chiffonier. I thought perhaps it would be better to unwrap it in the hall before taking it upstairs, as the litter could be cleared easier; however, will let it stand until advised what to do with it. Frank." The other, dated the 14th, two days after she had left Summit, in these words: "My Dear Wife: I was surprised and very much grieved to find that you had come home and gone away again in my absence. I have tried to be all that man could be to you, and have given you the best I had of affection, and of my worldly goods, and I am very sorry that you should have left Summit without a word to me. My home is yours, and all that I have, and I want you to come back to me. I am not able to support you away from home, as you know. I will try to make things as easy as possible for you, but you knew just how we would be situated before our marriage, and apparently cheerfully assented to the arrangement. My home is always open to you, and the best love I can give. Affectionately, Frank Wright." Now, it is to be observed of that letter that he must have known at that time the reason why his wife was angry when she left. He must have known that she came on the 9th intending to stay, or else she would not have sent the chiffonier, and he must have known why she left, and he could have made the explanation which he told his mother he would make to her if she would wait to see him. But the letter contains no explanation. The husband falls into an error as to this letter which it is worth while to correct. He swears that after returning from his visit in search of his wife on the 13th among her friends in Newark, and to her aunt in Brooklyn, he bethought himself of Hackettstown, and wrote to her father, and learned by a letter in reply that she was at Hackettstown, and then wrote the letter above set forth of December 14th. This is a mistake, because she did not reach Hackettstown until the 16th. But before reaching home and receiving her husband's letters of the 8th and 14th, she had written this letter: "Monday, Dec. 16th, 1895. Dear Frank: When I reached Summit, Thursday afternoon, I found the door to our room—my only home—locked, and your mother told me that you had taken the key. As you had locked the door against me, I thought that you no longer loved me, and that you did not want me there. Therefore I went away. You refused me a winter coat, the only article of clothing for which I have asked you. I needed it, and borrowed the money to pay for it. I have been seeking a position, that I might be able to repay the loan. I have been unsuccessful. When I reached Mr. C.'s, I was told that you had been inquiring for me. I am going home today, and will be pleased to see you there. You have been very unkind to me severaltime? In the few weeks that I have lived with you, but I think all your unkindness to me has been the result of the influence brought to bear against me by your mother and sister. If you will provide me a home away from them, and treat me as a wife should be treated, I will willingly live with you. Life in their home has become unbearable for me, and so injurious to my health that I can no longer endure it Your wife, Anna Wright." Then, on December 20th, after reaching home, she wrote him as follows: "Dear Frank: When I reached home Monday evening your letters were given to me. I have also read the one you sent to papa Tuesday. You are mistaken in saying that I had said that I had spent a week in Brooklyn, Newark, and Roseville. I said: 'I left home last week. I have been to Brooklyn.' I came home Nov. 18th to remain until my health was better. I left home Sat. morning, Dec. 7th, going directly to Brooklyn. Leaving Brooklyn Monday afternoon, I went directly to Summit. You write, 'My mother received and has always treated Anna kindly.' You do not know all the unkind things your mother has said to me. I was not kindly treated by her. I was made to feel that I was an intruder. It is unnecessary to enumerate the things that have been said and done to make it disagreeable for me to live with them. Will has always treated me well. The day I moved there your mother told me that she had told you if I could not work I had better get out I remained until the unkind treatment and worriment had affected my health so that I could not eat, and had no strength to work. Then I went home. I did not receive one word from you while I was away, but when I returned to Summit, Dec. 9th, you received me kindly. I went to Newark, Dec. 11th, to do some shopping for my mother. Before going I said. 'I'll not be back until to-morrow.' You replied, 'All right.' I did not say what time of the day I would return, but when I reached there my chiffonier had been moved from the hall, and my room door locked. Your mother said you had taken the key that morning. While shopping I had bought—with money I had before our marriage—a very useful Christmas present for you, and then, to find myself locked out, it was more than I could endure. I took the 6:22 train for Madison. You write that you want me to come back. I do not want to be separated from you. Will you give me a home away from your mother and Ella? I will come back if you will, and I will try to do everything I can to make a happy home for you. There are many things I think we should talk about. Will you come up Christmas, or some time soon, and talk them over with me? Affectionately, yours, Anna Wright." He replied, under date of December 26th, as follows (Italics are mine): "Dear Anna: I have tried again and again to think of an instance when I have been unkind to you, but I cannot. On the contrary, I have been a kind husband, and have given you the first place in my affections, and have done all in my power to make you happy here in our new home. No influence has ever been brought to bear against you by my mother or sister, and the relations peculiar to the circumstances have, in my judgment, been happy, compared with those who lived as we did. My mother has not been unkind, she has no desire to be unkind, and there is nothing for her to gain should she be so disposed. She has labored for years, and particularly hard since we became acquainted, so that she could help save enough to enable us to be married and settled in a new home of our own. She has done without what ordinary women regard as necessities, in order to give you and me this home. She has and is now wearing the same hat, winter and summer, that she purchased four years ago. Taking these facts into consideration, it is not reasonable that she should be unkind, and her conduct and words have always, so far as I know and have been able to ascertain, been devoid of anything touching unkindness. Ella, I think, has been good to you. You write that you will live with me again if I provide you a new home. There is no possible way to make such an arrangement. I could not engage one room, and keep from running in debt the first month. I know this, because it has been (as you must know) a constant struggle for me to pay my present obligations, and, should I pay those I owe to-night, I would not have a dollar left. It is therefore utterly useless for me to contemplate for a moment the thought of my starting a new home, or entertaining any arrangement other than the present. I hope you will thoughtfully reconsider my appeal to you to come back to me, and that you will decide to come and accept my home and your home as it has always been since our marriage; but, in case you still do not want to come, I have thought probably there are things you have locked in your trunk that you may need,—underwear or dresses. These or other articles of your own I will be glad to send to you if you will send the keys. I should like to talk with you, but our conversation ought to be here in our own home, and I hope to see you soon. Your affectionate husband, Frank Wright."
It may be well here to say that some time in the fall she had asked her husband for money to buy her a coat, and that he had, in substance, declined to give it to her. She went to Newark, and obtained one (retail price, $18) at wholesale price for about $10 or $12, hoping he would pay for it. He declined to pay for it, and she paid for it herself; and she declares that during the whole time she lived with him all she got from him was $8.05, and he does not deny It, and says that $5 of that sum was given to her at her home to pay her doctor's bill. The matter of paying for the coat was mentioned between them more than once, and she saysthat on one of the occasions he said he would pay for it if she would do more of the housework. She further swears that during her stay at Summit in October and November her mother visited her there, and at the dinner table she was treated so coolly by the family that she left the table before the meal was finished, and declined to sleep in the house, and that the defendant procured her lodging in the adjoining house. That defendant's mother did leave the dinner table before the meal was finished is an admitted fact, the only dispute being as to whether or not it was the result of cool behavior on the part of the husband and his mother and sister.
In answer to the letter of December 26th, the defendant wrote as follows, under date of January 20, 1896: "Dear Frank: Your letter came some time ago. I would have written if I had not been expecting to have seen you long before this. Circumstances, however, have prevented. On account of Lillie's wedding to-morrow, and papa's going away the latter part of the week, I will not see you this week, and do not know just when I will be down. Affectionately, Anna." On January 27th she visited him at his place of business, and they had an extended talk and discussion of their affairs. There can be no doubt that for a long time she had determined, if possible, to induce, or perhaps the circumstances will warrant the use of the word "compel," her husband to live with her separate from his mother and sister and brother. The result of the interview was that an agreement was made between them that they should live together in the house then occupied by them, separate from the mother and sister; that the mother and sister and brother should occupy the upper rooms of the house, of which there were four, and that she and her husband should occupy the lower rooms, of which there were three,—parlor, dining room, and kitchen. Her husband, however, stated that it would take, as he swears, three or four days, and, as she swears, three or four weeks, to prepare the house for such occupation; and thereupon, after a visit of one night at Newark, and a short stop at Summit, hereafter to be again referred to, she returned to her family, at Hackettstown, to await the preparation of the house. I can have no doubt whatever that the wife was actually desirous all this time of living with her husband; and I also find that she was, under all the circumstances, justified in asking him to live separate from the mother, sister, and brother, if such separate living was practicable and within his means. And I am further satisfied that it was practicable and within his means. At this interview they had a full discussion of all their troubles, and, as it showed the state of feeling existing in the husband's mind, I must give it somewhat in detail. The state of her health was discussed. He told her that he did not think she was strong enough to keep house; and he, according to her story, told her that she came to him a physical wreck, that she was dyspeptic and hysterical,—and that this was said in an unpleasant tone; and she says she told him that she was healthy when she came to him, and had not been in that condition before her marriage, and that he expressed doubt of the truth of her statements, and she told him he might ask her parents as to whether or not she had not been healthy and strong before her marriage. She further says that she stated to him all the difficulties of the equivocal position which she occupied in his house, and of her desire for a separate establishment; that he replied that his home was her home, to which she answered that, if it was her home, then his mother and sister must leave it, and, in connection with his offer of a separate home in the mode above stated, he said that she was a wicked woman to put him in such a hole, and that he believed her conduct in that behalf was premeditated, without explaining what he meant by "premeditated." He swears that she declared that he must do as she wished when they came to live together under the new arrangement. This accords with what Mrs. Guerin swears that she said to her at an interview about this time, viz. that she could have more influence over her husband if they lived by themselves. The question of their mutual love was discussed, and, when she assured him of her love for him, he accused her of falsehood, and three times stated, "Stop your lying," and told her that what love she had shown him before was all a lie and was mere gush; and he further said to her that it would be years before they could love each other as they had done, if ever. However, after a thorough discussion of their affairs, and, according to the account of both, not in a good temper, the arrangement for a separate living was proposed by him, fully discussed, and agreed upon in all its details. On that day,—January 27th,—after they had agreed to the plan of living separately under the same roof, the wife swears that she started to take a train to Summit to stop at the house, and asked her husband if the door of their room was locked, and that he said it was, and asked him for the key, which he refused, but he promised to leave the door open for her the next day. This he denies. She went to Newark and stayed overnight with a relative there, and went to Summit the next day and saw him there that evening, and then made a further packing of articles in her trunks, and otherwise, preparatory to moving downstairs. There is a dispute between the parties as to the extent of the packing on the 10th of December. The husband says that she packed all her things in her trunks, stripping the mantel and table, and strapping one trunk and roping the other, and that the reason he locked the door was that he thought that she Intended to move her things and go home, and that his locking the door would prevent her from doing so. She denied that such a thing occurred on the 10th of December, and asserts that she did make amore thorough packing on the 28th of January preparatory to moving downstairs. I am satisfied that the story of the wife in this behalf is the true one, and that the husband had no reason to believe that on the December occasion she intended to leave him. My reason for this conclusion is that she manifested an intention to come on that occasion permanently, by having had a chiffonier shipped to the house just before she came, and from the affectionate manner in which they passed the day and two nights that she spent there. The argument of her counsel is that the real reason, disclosed by the evidence, why he kept the door locked, and did not even, subsequently, in his letter of December 26th, offer to send her her trunks, was that some of the wedding presents which he thought belonged to him were locked up in them, and he desired to abstract them before allowing the trunks to go. There can be no pretense that the packing of her trunks on the 28th of January was with any intention whatever of taking them away. She did not not take them, but went home with the full expectation, as I believe, of coming back to live with her husband as soon as the house was ready for her and he notified her.
On this occasion—afternoon of the 28th of January—she was at the house when he arrived from the train about 6 o'clock, saw him approach the house, and beckoned from her window for him to come directly upstairs without removing his overcoat. But he stopped downstairs several minutes,—to talk with his mother, as she thought,—and then appeared without his coat. She pressed him to accompany her to the station to take the train which she intended to take at 6:22 for Hackettstown, so that she could talk with him privately; but he declined, and she went to the station alone. He excuses himself for this refusal on the ground that he did not wish her to go, and was unwilling to give the least countenance to her leaving, such as would be Inferred by his accompanying her to the station. This explanation seems to me insufficient, since it is quite plain that the agreement of the previous day for the new arrangement of living contemplated that she was not to return to live with him, even for 24 hours, until the necessary internal changes in the house were made, which, as he said, would occupy three or four days. And I am unable to perceive how his accompanying his wife to the station could, under the circumstances, be considered as an approval of her abandoning his home. There was also another matter of dispute between them subsequently as to the occurrences of that occasion, namely, as to whether or not she was invited by both himself and his mother to take dinner before she left. He complained that she did not accept an invitation to dinner, and she declared that she did not understand she had been invited to stay to dinner. Be that as it may, I am entirely satisfied that, notwithstanding the rather unpleasant Interview of January 28th, if the husband had proceeded at once to make the necessary internal changes in his house, and had written her that it was now ready for their occupation in accordance with the agreement of the 27th of January, providing that they should live separate and apart from the mother and sister, she would have returned to him as she agreed to do, trusting in her ability to win his love and affection, and make a home that was happy for both of them, but for what immediately followed. Instead of doing this, on January 29, 1896, he wrote her as follows, some parts of which I have italicized: "Dear Anna: Write me few lines, and let me know how you are. Your cold was worse last night, and I was sorry you would not stay. My mother, I noticed, took extra pains in preparing dinner, expecting you, and I wish you had eaten or taken a cup of tea before starting. Since I could not persuade you to stay, I thought you would spend a little time with me, as it had been so many weeks since I had seen you or heard from you. Among other things, I wanted to talk over the proposed change. I see you have partly unpacked your trunks and placed the things in your chiffonier; so much already done towards moving. I wonder if your parents will want you to live that way? I know it is hard, more so for my mother, but it is the best I can do, since you say you will not live with me the same way you did before you left me. We will have to live exceedingly saving. This fact I want to impress, because I do not want in the least to mislead you, or disappoint you. The change will practically double my expenses, but with care I hope to live without debt. In the matter of economy, I hope to find you a great help, for in the end both will be benefited. I have tried to be a good husband, and I am quite confident, if we try to live for each other's happiness and welfare, we shall succeed. You are so weak, though, I do not see how you will be able to keep house, cook, and do the work, but you say you can. No matter how much I would wish to, it will be absolutely impossible for me to hire help, and the care of the lower floor will fall entirely upon you. All these facts I mention because I want you to fully realize the dark side before you come. Ella, my mother, and Willie will be obliged to pass through the kitchen and sitting room when going out back with clothes, or going into the cellar for coal or wood; but you will not see them as often as you used to, of course. Think over all I have written tonight. I will not make any change until I hear from you, and find you will accept knowing some of all the difficulties. I want you to live with me, and be happy, but, as I have already said, it will not be as easy for you as when we all lived together. Hoping to hear from you soon, and that you are quite over the cold, affectionately, yours, Frank." This letter the wifeswears she interpreted as one of intentional discouragement to her return, and that it had a chilling effect on her, and led her to believe that her husband did not really wish her to return. The husband was cross-examined at length upon his meaning and intention in thus writing, and how he expected his wife to get on with the new plan, and I feel constrained to say that his explanation was not satisfactory. At one time he said he thought his wife really was weak and unable to do housework, and at another that he hoped she would grow stronger, and at another that he believed she could do more work than she had done if she was so minded, and at another he substantially admitted that he expected that the experiment would end in a resort to the old plan of joint living.
On February 6th she answered as follows: "Dear Frank: You must have been mistaken in supposing your mother had made extra preparations, expecting me to take dinner with her. I had no invitation to stay, and, under the circumstances, she certainly could not expect me to stay without an invitation. You must have forgotten what you said to me, as you write that you could not persuade me to stay. You did not ask me to stay. When I was at the door, insisting upon your going to the station with me, you said, 'I'm sorry you will not stay and take dinner with us,' and 'I'm sorry you will not stay over night with us.' There were some things that I wished to ask you, and others that I wanted to talk about with you; but I did not have time, as you would not go to the station with me, although I had waited two hours for the purpose of seeing you. Do you know if a key came with the chiffonier or not? I could not find it. The things in my chiffonier are those that were in the closets, apparently in some one's way. You say, 'knowing some of all the difficulties,' It is best that I should know what the other difficulties will be. In order to save trouble that may arise on account of expenses, it is best to know what to depend upon. How much will you allow for my personal expenses, and how much for all the necessary household expenses? I have other things to say after I hear from you. Your wife, Anna Wright." In the meantime he had written her a short letter on the same date,—February 6th,—which crossed her letter: "Dear Anna: As I received no answer to my last letter, I will write you again. I have been expecting a few lines from you, hoping to hear you suffered no bad effects from your cold. 1 hope you are well. I want to hear from you very, much, and know how you are. I am ready to receive you now into our new home, which is as separate from my family as is possible under my circumstances. I hope we will be very happy together under the new arrangement. It is the best I can do. If you prefer to write, setting a definite day when you will be down, I will try to have all the changes completed by that time. At any rate, I am glad you promised to live with me again, and I now look for you down at your earliest convenience. Affectionately, yours, Frank Wright." This letter implies that he had already made the necessary changes in the house in order to adapt it for double housekeeping. In point of fact, none such had been made.
In answer to her letter of February 6th he wrote on February 10th: "Dear Anna: 1 wrote you again last Thursday evening, and received an answer to my previous letter, Friday night. I was very glad to hear from you. You do not mention your cold, so I presume you are quite over it. I know my mother expected you to stay, when I came in from my work. Before going upstairs to you, I saw she had made preparations for you. Besides, I saw she had a chair and plate placed for you where you used to sit. If you did not find a key to the chiffonier, I do not think one came with it. You ask how much I will allow you expenses. Keeping two families, as I said before, will double my expenses. It will be a new experiment, and, of course, I cannot tell how much it will cost. Each family will have to live economically, in order that I may be able to meet my obligations. You know I must meet my monthly payments, as failure to do so will cause the mortgage to be foreclosed, and we would in consequence be without a home. It has been too hard a struggle to obtain it, to have to give it up now. My mother and 1 have denied ourselves almost every comfort and pleasure for years to get this property, and her health has given out in the struggle. You accepted my proposition to come and live with me and occupy the lower floor. Come, let us work together lovingly and for each other. Please come back home to stay with me permanently. Come this week, and write me the day you will be there, and the train you will take. Affectionately, yours, Frank Wright." In which it will be seen that he, in effect, declined to make her any allowance of money whatever for personal expenses. The wife wrote on February 15th as follows: "Dear Frank: I wonder what your mother's opinion of me must have been, if she thought I would stay to dinner with her after all this trouble she has made between us. Ever since the first week of our marriage she has been making trouble between us and alienating our affections. Before our marriage you gave me to understand that you had been supporting your mother. Since our marriage you have been continually trying to impress upon me how much she has done for you, even telling me, 'No matter how much you do for her, you can never do as much for her as she has done for you, through our marriage, by what she has saved.' I am sick and tired and disgusted with hearing what 'my mother has done.' I do not see that she has done so much. It will be years yet before your house will be paid for. I do not believe she has done any more for you than she should have done, considering what you have been doing for herI feel positive that without your help she could not, by hard labor, have supported herself and her other children and been worth as much as the lot you bought for her is worth. I believe you would have been worth more than you are if you had not had her and her family to support. You say you have given me the first place in your affections, but actions and facts speak louder than words. The person in whom any one places the most confidence, and for whom he will do the most, is the one who has the first place in his affections. You have promised to support your mother, you have your life insured for her benefit, you are paying for a thousand-dollar lot for her, and, from what she said, I understood that you have been planning to build upon it, and that will be hers. She has your money, and uses it as she wishes, without giving any accounting to you. I think it is all right for you to do this for her, if you can provide better for your wife and family if you should have one. A man's first duty is to his wife and family. Since our marriage, Aug. 22nd, you have given me but $8.05. I have been compelled to borrow for my winter coat, postage, and car fare. You thought our talk should be down there. It was too long a walk, so I was compelled to borrow the money to go. As you would not give me the key to get into our room after some clothing, I was obliged to go some where to stay overnight, to wait for you to leave the door open. That took some of my borrowed money, as you did not offer to buy a ticket for me. I cannot accept the conditions which you attached in your letter of Jan. 29th to your former offer of a separate home. There would be no privacy whatever if the family upstairs were permitted to pass through our rooms whenever they chose to go to the cellar or out back. It would be very disagreeable and annoying for me, and I will not agree to allow it. Such arrangements always make trouble. Other arrangements can be made. You know that I am not strong, and I do not understand how you can think of telling me that you can hire nothing done. After you bought that lot for your mother, I feared that you were too much in debt to burden yourself further by marrying. You reassured me. You also told me, 'If I should die now, I would be worth five thousand dollars.' You deceived me by not telling me that a part of that would be from life insurance for your mother's benefit. You wronged me by marrying me, if you cannot support me. Perhaps you recall that I told you before we were engaged that I was not strong, and you replied that you did not want me for a drudge. I also told you several times that I would not be able to do the washing. You replied that you did not want me to do it. I told you these facts so you would not marry me if you could not support me without my working hard. I am not as well as I was before our marriage. I do not know that I will remain as well as I am now. If I remain as well as I am now, and have been during the past two months, I think I will be able to do the work for ourselves, with the exception of the house cleaning and washing. Before our marriage, when I spoke to you of an allowance, you said There will never be any trouble in that respect. What I have will be yours.' I cannot allow such feelings against you to arise as arose from my asking you three times for money for a winter coat,—the only article of clothing for which I have asked you,—and then not getting it, being compelled finally to borrow the money for it. It was very hard for me to have to ask you for it. I never before knew what it was to ask for money for any necessary article, and not have it given to me. Now I must have an allowance of not less than $2.50 a week for my personal expenses, outside, of doctor bills. That is very little. Ordinary servants have that much. If you think you can support me giving me that much for personal expenses, hire the washing and other necessary help for me, and support a family if one should be given to us, I will make my arrangements to go to you soon. I think you can do this, but, if you cannot do these things, I will wait until you are able to support me. Let me know your decision soon,—whether you will be able to do these things or not. I am perfectly willing to live in the few rooms, if you can provide no better, but happiness will depend upon the kindness and consideration I receive. You claim that your expenses will be doubled. I do not see in what way. There would be little extra except light and fire. Perhaps it would be cheaper for you and easier for your mother to hire her board somewhere. I think she could get board cheap, if she furnishes her own room. We could take Will until he is entirely able to earn sufficient for his own support. Hoping to hear from you soon, your wife, Anna Wright." In answer to that the husband, on February 17th, wrote: "Dear Anna: Your letters of the 15th received. I regret exceedingly that you will not accept my proposed new arrangement. I explained at the office that my family would be obliged to pass through our rooms for coal &c., that all would have to live saving, and then asked you if you would accept. You replied, 'I will accept' You have since changed your mind, and I understand by your last letter that one reason is because you object to my family passing through the sitting room and kitchen to go out back, and to their going through the sitting room to reach the cellar. If you will come back to stay, I promise that you shall live in entire privacy from any member of my family. If you come, I will each morning carry the things they need from the cellar upstairs to them. They will only need the clothesline occasionally, and they will carry their wash out of the front door, around the house, to the back. This will separate you as entirely from my mother, sister, and brother,so far as absolute privacy is concerned, as though you lived in another house. My mother and Ella has been kind to you, and I see no necessity to enter upon this new arrangement; but I proposed it to you to please you, and to comply with your wish as far as I could, knowing as I did that it would involve so much more expense and anxiety to me,—just how much expense, experience alone will tell. I will supply your necessities, when you come to live with me again, according to my means. When you lived with me, my mother and Ella did practically all the housework between them, and I believe no lady in Summit ever had an easier time in that respect than you did. Since you will not live with them, the extra expense of keeping two families will not permit me to hire the work done which they did for you. In our married life, we have only lived together eight weeks,—hardly long enough for us to become fairly acquainted with each other's peculiarities. No doubt, if we try to do for each other all we can,—bear and forbear,— we will soon find out each other's good qualities, and after a while I think you will agree marriage, in our case, is not a failure, but, so long as you stay away, we can never get to understand each other. Everything in your last letter that seems to require an explanation or an answer I have explained to you many times, and I can only say again that I never deceived you, to my knowledge, in any particular, and have tried to be honest and honorable, and as liberal as I believed my means and our mutual interest justified me. The foregoing words of this letter are written with the kindliest motive, and I do not mean them to hurt your feelings. I now offer you a home, and promise you no member of my family shall ever enter it after you come and the change fully completed. I beg of you to accept it. Please come home to me to stay,—come some day this week; and, if you will write and let me know the train you take, I will meet you at the station. Affectionately, yours, Frank Wright." To which he received no reply, and wrote again on the 2d of March as follows: "Dear Anna: I have looked every day for two weeks for a letter, but have not heard from you. We want to change our sleeping arrangements as formerly, if you are not coming back to live with me. I hope you will come, and write and let me know when you are coming; but, if I do not hear from you to-morrow or Wednesday, I will understand your silence to mean that you refuse to accept my home, and the support I offer you here. Affectionately, yours, Frank Wright." On March 4th she answered as follows: "Dear Frank: I expected to see you this week, but I have a cold, and do not think it prudent to go out such weather. Will probably see you some time next week. Your wife, Anna Wright."
On March 10th she visited him at his place of business, at Shorthills, and, according to her account was met by him very coolly. He did not offer to kiss her, but immediately asked the question whether she had come back to stay or not. She started to answer him without committing herself, and he interrupted her and demanded, "Yes or no." She told him that she did not know that she was obliged to answer yes or no; that she wanted to see how he talked, to determine whether she would come back or not. The matter of the work that she would have to do if she took charge of the whole house as one family was spoken of, and she remarked to him that his mother had told her in October that, if she took charge of the house, the mother would not do any work; and he said that she would continue to work, for she was used to working, and could not give up working. In the course of the conversation he exclaimed, "Oh, gracious, how I have been deceived in you!" Thereupon she told him she had better go, and he said that she had promised to come back, and she replied that she had fully intended to do so. The matter of the $2.50 a week for her personal expenses being referred to, she said that he allowed his brother to save something out of his earnings, and that she thought she ought to have some money of her own to provide clothing and pay for dressmaking, and could save out of it as well as anybody. He said that he would provide her all that was necessary. She said she supposed that a calico dress might be all that was absolutely necessary, but it would not enable her to go away from home at all. She told him that she demanded the $2.50 a week in her letter as a test to ascertain whether or not he really wanted her to come back; that she doubted it. and put that as a test. The husband swears that in the course of the interview he begged his wife to come back. This she denies. The husband swears that she said she would not contest a divorce if he sued her. This she also denies, and does not recollect that anything was said about a divorce. She says she never consented to it. She swears that, in connection with the additional expense he would incur for a separate establishment, she spoke of an expectation which she had in the way of money from her parents, and that he said, "Oh, you can't buy me in that way." Then, when she intimated that she was going to leave him, he demanded a share of the wedding presents, and this she declined to give, and left. They kissed each other good-bye. She went to the house, packed her things, had them moved to the station; and he met her there just as she was going, and then told her that he would have made over one-half of the life insurance to her, and that he would pay for her coat, if she came back. Very little was said at that moment. She swears that when she went to the house on the 10th of March, after this interview, she found that no change whatever had been made in the interior, in the way of fixing the rooms upstairs for separate living; but she swears that she had herself,during the period between January 28th and March 10th, made considerable preparations for going back to Summit to live, and only finally determined not to do so after the interview with her husband of March 10th.
On March 11th the husband prepared notices for the newspapers in these words: "Warning. My wife, Anna Wright, having left my bed and board on December 12, 1895, I, the undersigned, hereby notify and warn all persons that I will not be responsible for any debts contracted by her prior to and after the date of this notice. Summit, New Jersey, March 11th, 1896, Frank Wright." Copies of this notice he sent, with cash to pay for publication, to the Washington Star, a newspaper published at Washington, Warren county, 10 miles west of Hackettstown, which actually published it, and also to two newspapers published at Hackettstown, who declined to insert it, and returned it with the cash, and to the newspapers published at Summit, and to newspapers in Newark. On March 12th, presumably before the insertion of these notices came to the knowledge of his wife, she wrote him as follows: "Dear Frank: In unpacking, I found this card of yours among my things. I feared you might think I took it intentionally. I spoke to you of my things that were missing, and, as you did not know what they were, I infer that some member of your mother's family has taken them. I will depend upon you to see that they are sent to me, if you wish to save them from disgrace. At the station you said you did not know why I was going away from you, 'only that I was tired of married life, and was afraid of motherhood.' I did not have time to explain, and, as I do not want to give the least reason for being misunderstood, I write. I am not tired of married life, neither am I afraid of motherhood. Nothing would please me more than to have a kind husband and children. Another thing that you may not have fully understood was why I put the things in my trunk last Dec. I came back with the intention of having a talk with you, if possible, and of telling you that I would no longer live with your people. You received me kindly, and we were so happy together that I could not ask you, because I did not know how to give you up if you would not give me a home away from them. You know how it ended. You asked me to return, but in your letter of Dec. 26th you showed your unwillingness to make the least change. However, when I saw you, the offer of the lower floor was made, but you said 'I was a wicked woman to put you in such a hole.' I expected to accept your offer, but your next letter showed me your real feelings about giving it to me. It looked as though you loved money too much to support a wife. However, I put the test of a personal allowance and necessary help (you bound yourself in writing for your mother), but you showed me how little to expect,—only necessities, not even the help for work which I was unable to do without suffering. If it were true that you really are unable to afford to hire necessary help, then there would be the risk of having a family, which you could not possibly afford. By asking me to return, you did what the law required. I put the test to see whether you really cared to have me return. Your reply showed that you would not be kind; that you would do nothing for me but what the law required you to do. It was not hiring me to return; it was only showing your willingness to provide for my comfort. When I married you, I had perfect confidence, and went to you without a test. Since then my confidence has been shaken. Therefore I put the test, to know if you were willing to do anything for me. I believe we might now be living happily together, if we had never lived with your relatives. As it is, my happiness is blasted, my life ruined. It is very hard. I hardly know how to bear it. I had doubts as to whether the home was ready for me, and when I reached there I found your mother living there just the same as ever,—nothing done towards moving. My reason for coming away is that you did not live up to your marriage vow of living 'after God's ordinance in the holy state of matrimony,' to 'love, comfort her, honor and keep her in sickness and in health.' 'God's ordinance' is found in the 10th chapter of St. Mark; also, in the latter part of the 5th chapter of Ephesians. As I told you, it depends upon you whether we ever live together again. My opinion is, and has been, that you were dissatisfied with me, and that you wrote as you did for the purpose of discouraging me from returning. Yours, truly, Anna Wright."
On March 14th he addressed letters to her father and mother, respectively, in the following language: "Mr. S. C. Larison—Dear Sir: My wife, Anna Wright, having left my bed and board on December 12th, 1895, I notify and warn you that I will not be responsible for any debts contracted by her prior to and after the date of this notice. Sincerely yours, Frank Wright.
"Dear Mr. Larison: My counsel advised me to send you and Mrs. Larison the foregoing notice. The effort causes me great regret, for I respect you. My counsel insisted on my advertising, if possible, in the Hackettstown papers, and in those of the neighboring towns and in Summit. Frank Wright."
"Mrs. S. C. Larison—Dear Madam: My wife, Anna Wright, having left my bed and board on December 12th, 1895, I notify and warn you that I will not be responsible for any debts contracted by her prior to and after the date of this notice. Sincerely yours, Frank Wright."
And, notwithstanding the offense which a wife would naturally take at the sending and publication of these notices, she wrote him on April 14th as follows: "Dear Frank: Accept my sincere wish that the new year you begin to-day may be a happy one for yon, Ifind that I left my clock key, and a corset cover trimmed with valenciennes lace. Will you be so kind as to send them to me. I have written several letters to you, and then destroyed them, fearing that you might feel annoyed; but I must write, no matter how you choose to take it. I fear this trouble will craze me yet, if I do not tell you Just how I feel and have felt about it. While I lived there, your mother said several things that lessened my confidence in you, try as I would not to allow myself to be influenced by them. These things, your treatment of me, what you said about 'endurance,' and your neglect of me when I came home in such miserable health, made me feel that you had not a particle of love for me. I went back with the intention of telling you just how I felt about it, and about living with them. The kind way you treated me made me believe in you again, for the time, and I dreaded to worry you by telling you that I would no longer live with them, and I did not know how to give you up if you could not give me a home away from them. After I came away your letters made me feel that they were written under advice, and that you were trying to prevent me from returning, as you knew that I was unable to do such heavy work as washing and house-cleaning without being injured by doing it. I could not help feeling hard-hearted and bitter, at times, on account of such treatment. The tone of voice when you asked, 'Why don't you come back?' made me feel for the moment, and for the first time, that you wanted me to come back. Since then I have been troubled by doubts and fears as to whether you did or not. I do not know how to endure having you think that I did not have sufficient love for you to have forgiven you and tried life with you again, if I had thought that you really wanted me to return. If you did want me, I do not wish you to endure such agony of mind as I have endured. What you said about wives loving their husbands sometimes makes me fear that you may have thought that I did not love you, or I would not have come away. Although I do not know any reason for you not to have confidence in me, from the way you talked you had very little. I saw that you wanted that home for your mother, and I knew that in many ways I did not suit you, and I felt that you had very little love for me. Therefore I thought it best to come away and let you get a divorce. Your letters made me feel that you wanted to get a divorce, if you could prevent me from returning. I married you for the love that I had for you, and for the love that I believed you had for me. You wronged me by marrying me, if you did not love me and have confidence in me. I want to do right. I had and have no desire to be unkind to you in coming away. What happiness could there be for either of us, for me to leave those who love me, and to go among strangers, if you did not love me and want me to return. I think I fully realize now the position in which you were placed. With kindest regards, your wife, Anna Wright." This ended the correspondence.
Some of the statements of things said by the mother and husband, testified to by the wife, are denied by those persons; but a careful consideration of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the wife was honest, and intended to be truthful, and was in the main correct and reliable. The husband was pressed to explain why he did not answer this last letter of April 14th, and in explanation stated that he did not believe that it was sincere, that he believed it was wholly insincere, declared that it was all a "fake," and admitted that he had lost all affection for his wife, and did not care to try further to induce her to return. The wife, on the other hand, swears—and I believe her—that she was perfectly sincere in her desire to live with her husband, and to embrace the opportunity of living with him separate from his mother and sister, to regain his affection and become a loving and dutiful wife. She swears that she suspected the insincerity of his letters of December and January begging her to return, especially after the discouragement set forth in the letter of January 29th, and she says the principal reason of making the demand for an allowance of $2.50 a week was to test him, to ascertain whether he really wished her to return. Upon a careful consideration, and reading the evidence and letters several times, I am convinced that the wife was truthful and sincere in this last letter of April 14th, as well as in all of her letters. She did not desire a divorce, and was reluctant to be put in the position of a deserting wife. At her time of life, she had much to lose, and little to gain, by a separation and divorce. I think she really desired to live with her husband. And I am further convinced that the letter of April 14th disclosed the true state of her mind. I am satisfied that she at no time desired or intended to finally leave her husband. I believe that she feared, from his conduct and language on the evening and night of the 13th of November, and previous and subsequent thereto, that he was in some way dissatisfied with her and her conduct, and that whatever love he had for her at the start was failing and growing weak; that she believed that this weakening of his affection was due, in part, to the presence of his mother and sister in the family; that she desired to win his affection, and believed that she could do so if they could live separate from his mother and sister; that she believed, rightly, that her health was suffering from the then present mode of living; that she went home on the 18th of November with proper motives and with a sufficient excuse; that her doubt of her husband's love and desire for a continuation of the marriage state was increased by his failure to respond to her affectionate letter of November 21st; that she went back on December 9th fully intending to remain, provided she could indueshim to provide her with a separate home; that she was justly offended by being locked out of her room; and that the affront which the felt had been so put upon her was aggravated by finding, two days later, that he had been among her friends in Newark and Brooklyn, notifying them not to trust her on his account. And here it is to be remarked that while he justifies his publication of her in the newspapers after she left him on March 10th, three months later, on the ground that she had on that day threatened to run him in debt, he brings forward no such justification for his verbal notice to her friends in Newark and Brooklyn. I believe that she was sincere in all her efforts to return upon the condition named, and in saying in one of her letters that, if he was then unable to support her, she would wait until he became able to do so; that notwithstanding his failure to explain the locking of their door, and his refusal of her invitation to visit her at Hackettstown on the occasion of the holidays, she went to see him afterwards on the 27th of January, still desiring to return to live with him if he would make her life comfortable, and that she agreed with him in good faith on that occasion to go back to live with him on the lower floor of his house, separate from his mother and sister; that she would have gone back as soon as notified by him that the house was ready, but for the letter he wrote her on January 29th. I think she was justified in looking upon that letter as an indication that he was not sincere in his desire to give her a separate home. I think that the concession which he made to her demands for a separate establishment was no greater than he ought to have made; and, further, I think that under all the circumstances, her demand for an allowance of $2.50 a week for her personal expenses was one to which he ought, as a just man, to have acceded. The general rule that the wife must accept such a home as a husband can afford to give her, and partake of his poverty, does not go so far, in my judgment, as to hold that the defendant here was bound to live with her husband's mother and sister under circumstances which she believed were injurious to her health, and which did not, so far as regards her husband's pecuniary means, appear to her, and do not appear to me, to render such living necessary. It must be remembered that there were as yet no children of this marriage, and her absence did not break up his family or home, and did not prevent him from visiting her at her house, where he was cordially invited, and her absenting herself was with the express avowal that she was ready to return whenever he could properly support her. I think, throughout, the wife was justified in suspecting, if not in believing, that her husband was not sincere in desiring her to return, but really wished to put her in the position of a deserting wife, and that his affectionate appeals to her to return were not sincere. A strong argument was made by counsel of defendant in favor of the proposition that the evidence warrants the belief that the complainant was from the first seeking cause for divorce. I think that her visit on the 10th of March was for the purpose of ascertaining his real feelings and desires towards her, and whether he really wished her to return and was willing to try to make her life comfortable, and that she judged from his conversation that he did not intend so to do, and that she removed her goods believing that it was his desire that she should leave and desert him, and thereby give him a cause for divorce, and that the letters of March 12th and April 14th were written for the purpose of disclosing to him the true state of her mind. Arriving at these conclusions, I think that letter of April 14th must be viewed in two aspects: First, as a statement to him that she left because she thought he did not love her, and did not desire her to return, and that he desired to get a divorce; and, second, as holding out inducements to him, if he did love her and desired her return, to open negotiations for a return to connubial living. The questions at this stage of the case, then, are: First, whether the husband's failure to reply to that letter does not put him in the position of assenting to her absence for the purpose of a divorce. Was it not his duty at once to reply, and disabuse her mind of the idea that he wished a divorce, and to assure her that he really wished her to return? And, second, whether it can be truly said that in the absence of any further effort on his part to effect a reconciliation and return to cohabitation, her desertion can be properly held to be "obstinate."
It must, of course, be borne in mind that this court has no power to decree a divorce because the marriage relation renders either or both the spouses unhappy, or their lives miserable, or because a divorce would be a blessing to one or both, and is desired by each. Incompatibility, uncongeniality, however irrecilable and incapable of change, form no cause for divorce. There must be a matrimonial default and offense of a particular character committed by one spouse against the other. It must be distinctly an offense against the marriage relation, and it must be without the consent or connivance of the injured party, for it is well settled that the maxim, "Volenti non fit injuria," applies here. Taylor v. Taylor, 28 N. J. Eq. 207; Moores v. Moores, 16 N. J. Eq. 275, at page 281, where Chancellor Green thus expresses himself: "The complainant is before the court, seeking redress for a wrong done by the defendant in refusing to discharge her matrimonial obligations. But what right has he to complain of any act as a violation of his rights, which was done with his assent? The general maxim of the law is, 'Volenti non fit injuria.' If the complainant has sustained no injury, he has no ground for redress. Admitting that the agreement for separation by the husband and wife was notbinding, that the conduct of the wife in absenting herself from her husband was unjustifiable and even criminal, it will not at all aid the complainant's case. Adultery is not less a crime if committed with the husband's consent; but no principle is better settled, or founded upon clearer reason, than that no divorce in such case will be granted at the instance of the husband. Nor is the case at all altered by the declared unwillingness of the wife to return to her husband. The right of the husband to redress must depend, not upon the intent, but upon the overt act, of the wife. The simple inquiry is, has the wife, for the space of three years, absented herself from her husband without his consent and against his will? If she has not, her desertion is not, within the contemplation of the law, willful and obstinate." And was followed by me in Smith v. Smith, 55 N. J. Eq. 222, 37 Atl. 49, at page 229, 55 N. J. Eq., and page 51, 37 Atl. The offense here charged is willful, continued, and obstinate desertion. The element of "obstinacy" is one that has been required in every instance, and especially in a suit of the husband against the wife. In Cornish v. Cornish, 23 N. J. Eq. 208, Chancellor Zabriskie, speaking of the duty of the husband, said: "It was his duty to go to her, after leaving under these circumstances, and see if some contrition, some concession, on his part, could not do away with the effect of his harsh conduct on that night. Her threat, in the anger of the moment, never to live with him, and to obtain a divorce, are not sufficient excuse for not making the attempt. He has acted as if anxious to convert a small quarrel between him and his wife, in which he was both much and most to blame, into a legal ground for divorce. He has not made the advances or concessions which a just man ought to have made, to put an end to this desertion. For want of this, a desertion which was willful and continued cannot be adjudged obstinate." This statement of the duty of a husband to seek his wife in order to get her to return, and to make all such concessions and advances as a Just man ought to make, was adopted and reiterated by Vice Chancellor Dodd in Bowlby v. Bowlby, 25 N. J. Eq. 406. In speaking of the desertion in that case he said (page 409): "Willful in the first instance, it may be conceded to have been, under the favorable view I assume for the complainant. Obstinate it was not, because not persisted in against effort or influence on his part to bring it to an end." He continues: "Desertion or separation by the wife may be excused on grounds short of those which would be sufficient, on her side, to obtain a divorce. In Cornish v. Cornish, 23 N. J. Eq. 208, it was held that where the husband has not made the advances or concessions which a Just man ought to make to put an end to his wife's desertion, induced, though not justified, by his conduct to her, the desertion, though willful and continued, is not obstinate." And this opinion was affirmed on appeal. The rule there stated has been repeated many times since, and has become a familiar canon. And in Newing v. Newing, 45 N. J. Eq. 498, 18 Atl. 166, the rule above stated is again reiterated by Vice Chancellor Van Fleet, where he says (page 500, 45 N. J. Eq., and page 166, 18 Atl.): "The principle is also firmly established that if a wife leaves her husband without cause, and with intent to throw off her marital duty, and afterwards realizes that she has acted hastily or foolishly, and would return if the way were opened for her, but her husband refrains from doing anything to induce her to return, for the purpose of making her absence a ground of divorce, her desertion, in such a case, is neither obstinate nor against his will, and is not, therefore, a ground of divorce." And at the bottom of page 502, 45 N. J. Eq., and page 167, 18 Atl, he says: "He must act the part of a Just man, and if he refuses to make the advances to her which a just man ought to make in order to put an end to his wife's desertion, and allow her to return to his home, he, from that time forth, becomes the party in fault, and relieves his wife from the charge of being an obstinate deserter." In that case the wife, after having been absent a long time, wrote a letter which was, in effect, an offer to return and live with her husband, to which he made no reply. Besides these instances of separation which did not amount to obstinate desertion, the following cases may be consulted with profit: Hankinson v. Hankinson, 33 N. J. Eq. 66; Belden v. Belden, Id. 94; Herold v. Herold, 47 N. J. Eq. 210, 20 Atl. 375; Broom v. Broom, 47 N. J. Eq. 215, 20 Atl. 377; Loux v. Loux (N. J. Ch.) 41 Atl. 358; Van Wart v. Van Wart (N. J. Ch.) Id. 965.
The question, then, must be whether or not the husband, in the ease in hand, has made such concessions to his wife as a just man ought to have made under the circumstances; and whether or not the letter of April 14th must not, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, be considered as an offer to reconsider her previous action and return to him if he really wished her to return, and whether he must not be placed in the position of assenting to the proposition that her absence from him was in part, if not in whole, the result of a conviction upon her part that he did not love her and that he did not wish her to return, but to become a deserter, in order to enable him to obtain a divorce. I think these questions must be answered against the complainant, and that the result is fatal to his suit; for I think it quite clear that the Invitation of the husband to the wife to return, in order to avail him in a case like this, must have at least the appearance to the wife of being sincere, and must manifest to her an actual desire on his part for her return. Those elements I do not find in this case, nor do I find that he was willing to make the concessions which a Just man ought tomake in order to induce his wife to return. I will advise that the bill be dismissed, with the usual result.