
    Dorcas U. Van Name, Resp’t, v. Paul M. Van Name, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed June 25, 1888.)
    
    Divorce—What evidence suebtcient to sustain.
    On the trial of an action for absolute divorce, on the ground that defendant had committed adultery, the only proof of the guilt of defendant consisted of the fact that on one evening specified the defendant and another man, in company with two women, went to a designated house and all entered and remained about an hour. That the defendant and the two women were then seen to come out. The house was proven to be & house of ill-fame. Held, sufficient to sustain the finding that defendant, was guilty of adultery. The proof of the character of the house was. necessary in this case to give weight to the evidence of guilt.
    Appeal from a judgment of absolute divorce in favor of' the plaintiff, on the trial of this action at the Westchester county special term.
    
      Maurice Meyer, for app’lt; Charles Haines, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

This is an action for an absolute divorce-on the ground that the defendant has committed adultery.. The only proof of the guilt of defendant consists of the fact, that on one evening specified the defendant and another man left a beer saloon in the city of New York, in company with two women. The party went to a designated house- and all entered and remained about an hour. The defendant and the two women were then seen to come out; the other man remained in the house. The house was proven to be a, house of ill-fame by facts and general reputation. A cab-man testified to the fact that he had carried parties to the-house and left them there “which I knew didn’t belong-there.” The bad character of the house was proven under objection made by defendant. The case is not like Kenyon. v. The People (26 N. Y., 203).

In that case a woman living with her mother had been seduced under promise of marriage. It was held that the-chastity of the prosecutrix could not be established by proof of her character nor by proof of the bad character of the-mother’s house. In the present case the proof of the character of the house is necessary to give weight to the evidence of guilt. If parties were proven to go to the house-with women and the house was of evil repute, the inference-of guilt is inferable by a court and jury if unexplained. There was no explanation or evidence to contradict the inference.

We, therefore, think the finding of the court, that the defendant was proven guilty of adultery, should be sustained.. Allen v. Allen, 101 N. Y., 658.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.  