« AnteriorContinuar »
members. Hæc olim meminisse juvabit. Not sooa will they forget this memorable judge as he actually administered his office; his vigorous dominating presence and manner; his aceurate, quick-sometimes impatient-seizure of the salient points of a case; his clashes with counsel to bring out what he thought the vital questions; lis protection of the weak against the strong; his open, decided expression of views, with forceful argument to sustain them, but retaining always an openness of mind ready to be corrected. For withal and over all he had absolutely no pride of opinion, no sensitiveness nor apprehension about any charge of inconsistency; in truth, as he himself might have expressed it, he stood for no conclusion, either of himself or another, which did not fully stand the tests to which it must properly be subjected; and because he never spared himself in these respects, he failed to understand that others could take offence if at times he refused to spare them. IIis personal traits, his versatility, his genial friendliness, his wit and humor, and, over all, the power that emanated from a great human heart, full of love for his great profi-sion and those woril v 10 be its members as his brethren, and an fition that grei! 11!'; his advancing years, fastened all of us to him in bonds which will not be severed by death.
“We request that this tribute to his memory be made a permanent record in the court of chancery of New Jersey."
It was, accordingly, ordered by the chancellor that the foregoing addresses and the minute of the vice-chancellors be inscribed upon the minutes of the court and published in the New Jersey Equity Reports.
THE COURT OF CHANCERY
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1910.
MAHLON PITNEY, CHANCELLOR.
JOHN R. EMERY, FREDERIC W. STEVENS, EUGENE STEVENSON, LINDLEY M. GARRISON, EDMUND B. LEAMING, JAMES E.
HOWELL AND EDWIN R. WALKER, VICE-CHANCELLORS.
LAURA JANE ORAM
THOMAS W. ORAM.
[Decided March 15th, 1910.)
1. In a suit for maintenance by a woman against her alleged husband, evidence held to show such a prima facie case of recognition of the marriage relation with defendant after the alleged ceremony, as to entitle her to an allowance pendente lite for the expenses of her suit to establish the marriage.
2. In a suit for maintenance by a woman against her alleged husband, where for over ten years the complainant had received no support from defendant for herself and child, and defendant denied under oath the marriage ceremony sworn to by complainant, alimony pendente lite will be denied because of the long delay of complainant in filing the bill.
3. Where a bill for alimony is based on an actual marriage, and, on application by the wife for temporary alimony and expenses, the actual marriage set up is denied by the alleged husband, the wife must establish, by evidence other than her own, the existence of the marriage relation. But the mere uncorroborated denial of the marriage by the defendant under oath is not of itself, under all circumstances, sufficient to deprive the alleged wife of support until the trial, and aid in the expenses of the suit.
4. In a suit for maintenance, an allowance of counsel fee for the purpose of aiding the wife in bringing her cause to trial may be granted, though her application for alimony be denied.
On bill for maintenance. On application for alimony pendente lite and counsel fee. Heard on bill and affidavit, answer and affidavits and rebuttal affidavits.
Mr. Elmer King (Vessrs. Vreeland, King, Wilson & Lindabury, solicitors), for the application.
Mr. Benjamin W. Ellicott, contra.
EMERY, V. C.
On a bill for maintenance and support, application for alimony pendente lile and counsel fee is made by the wife (née Laura Jane Tyack), and calling herself Laura Jane Oram, on her affidavit of a ceremonial marriage in December, 1895, with proof of defendant's contribution until September, 1899, toward her support and that of her child, born in June, 1896. 'p to this time defendant, as she says, acknowledged her as his wife and the child as his, but since that time support has been refused and he has refused to live with her as his wife. At the time of the alleged marriage, the parties both lived in or near Wharton, in the county of Morris, but the marriage took place, as complainant swears, at the city of Hoboken, and was performed by Rev. Dr. IIoughton, then rector of a Protestant Episcopal church, in Hoboken, the parties giving not their true full names, but being married under the names of Thomas Williams and Jane Tyack. A certificate
of a marriage by persons under such names was made by the minister and is now in complainant's possession. The marriage, as complainant says, was to be kept secret during defendant's mother's lifetime, and after the ceremony, the parties do not seem to have at any time lived together under the same roof as husband and wife, but the defendant did visit complainant, after the time of the alleged ceremony, at the residence of her brother in Newark. Defendant's affidavit in reply denies specifically the ceremonial marriage sworn to by complainant or any other marriage to complainant under the name of Williams, or otherwise. He admits contribution to her support, but denies any acknowledgment or recognition of her as his wife at any time. He further admits that in 1898 and 1899 complainant used his name and held herself out as his wife, but says that this was done to cover her disgrace, and that in the fall of 1899, he refused to have anything further to do with her, or to support her in any way, and challenged her to prove her marriage. Complainant's affidavits in rebuttal, besides her own affidavit as to receiving letters and checks by defendant and addressed to her as Laura Oram, which are admitted by defendant and other circumstances showing recognition of the marriage, produces affidavits of members of her family and also of members of defendant's familyhis sister, brother-in-law and brother-all showing specific instances of the defendant's admission of his marriage to complainant. These admissions to members of his own family were made after his mother's death, in 1897, and before his father's death, in 1899, and after these admissions to members of his family and up to the time of his father's death, all of the members of his family, as their affidavits further state, recognized complainant as his wife, and some of them (including his father) visited complainant and her child at the house of her father, with whom she has lived since 1898. Defendant has not denied any of these statements as to specific admissions, and as to the recognition of the marriage, his case, upon this application, rests on his general denial that he ever at any time
"lived with complainant as his wife, or treated her as his wife, or introduced her as his wife, or visited her as his wife, or either publicly or privately acknowledged her as his wife, or her child as his child."