Mary Rutgers McCrea Conger, Respondent, v. Abraham B. Conger, Appellant

Mary Rutgers McCrea Conger, Respondent, v. Abraham B. Conger, Appellant. Evidence of mere association and frequent interviews between a man and woman, in the absence of criminating circumstances, cannot be attributed to an improper purpose, and will not sustain a charge of adultery, (Argued June 10, 1880; decided September 21, 1880.) This was an action for divorce a vinculo, on the ground of adultery. The referee found the charge not proved, and reported in favor of a dismissal of the complaint. This report was confirmed, and judgment entered accordingly. The General Term reversed the judgment on the facts and ordered a new trial. The court here agree with the referee, that while the evidence disclosed association, frequent interviews and intimacy between the defendant and the woman with whom he was charged with having adulterous intercourse, there was no credible evidence of improper conduct or familiarities, or of any criminal attachment between them, and the evidence showed that the frequent meetings of the parties were for proper and innocent purposes. The court repeat the rule above stated, citing Pollock v. Pollock (71 K T. 137). Robert Sewell for appellant. John E. Parsons for respondent. [MAJORITY — Danforth, J.,] Danforth, J., reads for reversal of order of General Term, and for affirmance of judgment of Special Term. All concur; Folger, Oh. J., concurring in result. Order reversed and judgment accordingly.