
    Joseph Fawcett, Plaintiff, v. Minnie V. Fawcett, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    December, 1899.)
    1. Divorce — Proof that the real defendant was served.
    Where the brother of the plaintiff serves the summons, in an action for absolute divorce, upon the defendant wife, he should, although he states in his affidavit of service that he knew her very well, be called as a witness, where she defaults, and be examined as to his knowledge that the person he served was the defendant.
    8. Same — Not granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the paramour.
    The court will not grant an absolute divorce upon the uncorroborated testimony of a man who appears and testifies that he himself had intercourse with the defendant wife, as the testimony tff such a man is to be viewed with suspicion.
    Action for an absolute divorce.
    William A. Sweetser, for plaintiff.
    ¡No appearance for defendant.
   Gildeksleeve, J.

The action is for an absolute divorce, instituted by the husband. The wife has not appeared in the action, and her default has been taken. The only proof of service of the summons and complaint on the defendant is furnished by the affidavit of one William E. Fawcett, who, in addition to the ordinary allegations, set forth in an affidavit of the service-of-a summons, swears that he is the brother of the plaintiff and knows the defendant very well. While, perhaps, this affidavit may, technically speaking, comply with the requirements of rule 18 of the General Rules of Practice, still I think that, considering the close relationship of the affiant to the plaintiff, he should have been called as a witness and examined on the subject. The only evidence of the alleged adultery is furnished by a man named Charles A. Greene, who testifies that on the 25th of August, 1899, at No. 340 West Thirty-seventh street, in this city, he, the said Greene, had sexual intercourse with the defendant. Evidence of this kind should be received with caution. When a man voluntarily appears in court, and swears away the reputation of a woman, who, as he claims, has sacrificed her honor for him, his testimony should be viewed with suspicion. I am unwilling to grant a decree of divorce against this woman, without further proof of the proper service of the summons and complaint on the defendant, and some corroborative evidence of the alleged adultery. An order may be entered restoring the case to the calendar, and setting it down for trial on the second Wednesday of December.

Ordered accordingly.  