Abigail Gould vs. Chester Gould

Abigail Gould vs. Chester Gould. Rutland, January, 1827. What isnuiBcioiit proof of adultery, ona potion for divorce» THIS was a petition for a bill of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for the cause of adultery. The facts relied on by the petitioner, as proof of the adultery, were that a young woman living in the house of the peti-tionee was pregnant of a child; that the petitionee executed a bond to the selectmen of the town where the child was likely to become chargeable, conditioned to save the said town harmless from the support of said child, and that he afterwards informed a witness that the young woman had been delivered oí the child, and said that he supposed he should have to father it. • Jonas Clark, for the petitioner. E. C. Royes, for the petitionee. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. Here is only the confession of the petitionee, that he should have to father the child. The confession or admission of the party alone, has never been deemed sufficient evidence of the fact of adultery for the purpose of a divorce. Other circumstances must be shown, such as improper familiarities between the parties. Ip cases of alienated affections, collusion, for the purposes of a separation, is to be apprehended. The publick have a deep interest in the preservation of marital contracts. Proof, therefore, which from its nature and character, leaves no reasonable doubt upon the mind, of the truth of the charge, must be furnished, before a bill of divorce can be granted. Prayer of the petition refused. On motion of the petitioner, the case was continued on the docket of the court, for further proofs.