
    Elizabeth W. Golden, appellant, v. Peter S. Golden, respondent.
    On appeal from a decree of the chancellor dismissing the bill, recommended by George C. Ludlow, esq., advisory master.
    
      Mr. R. Allen, jun., for appellant, cited—
    This cause, upon the bill and answer, was referred to George C. Ludlow, esq., advisory master, for trial. Upon his advice, the chancellor dismissed the complainant’s bill. From this decree the complainant appeals. The bill of coniplaint was for divorce, on the ground of adultery by defendant. The complainant insists that two charges of adultery in the bill were clearly proved.
    
      Bercksman v. Bercksman, 1 C. E. Gr. 143; Elewes v. Elewes, 1 Hagg. 272; Loveden v. Loveden, 2 Hagg. 20; Day v. Day, 2 Gr. Ch. 444.
    
    
      Mr. Wm. H. Vredenburgh, for respondent, cited—
    
      Black v. Black, 11 C. E. Gr. 295; Stevens v. Stevens, 1 McCart. 374 ; Jones v. Jones, 3 C. E. Gr. 33; Miller v. Miller, 5 C. E. Gr. 216; Clare v. Clare, 4. C. E. Gr. 37; Adams v. Adams, 2 C. E. Gr. 324.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, C. J.

The complainant in this bill seeks a divorce from her husband, on the ground, of his adultery. After carefully considering the testimony, I am unable to resist the conviction that the husband’s guilt, with respect to the immorality charged, is fully established. It is true that some of the witnesses, from the light in which they appear, are not entitled to much weight. But there are others who have a different standing, and whose character is unimpeached, and whose testimony cannot be true if the respondent be innocent. The circumstances, about which there can be no doubt, are such as strongly to corroborate the witnesses of this class. I shall not discuss the evidence, as it would be useless to do so.

I think the decree should be reversed and the divorce granted, with costs in both courts.

Magie, J.

(dissenting).

The decision depends upon the credibility of witnesses, some of whom are clearly discredited by their cross-examination, and others leave grave doubt on my mind as to the truthfulness of their story. Under such circumstances, I am unwilling to reverse the decree below made by a master who disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses, whom he had personally before him, and had thus the best opportunity to judge of their credibility.

Eor affirmance—Magie—1.

Eor reversal—Beasley, C. J., Depue, Dixon, Knapp, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Clement, Cole, Dodd, Green—11.  