
    Fluck v. Fluck.
    
      Divorce — Adultery—Evidence—Declarations of paramour.
    
    Voluntary declarations of a paramour, not under oath and not subject to cross-examination, are not sufficient to justify a decree in divorce on the ground of adultery.
    Divorce. C. P. Lehigh Co., April T., 1921, No. 157.
    
      Hyman Bookmaker, for libellant.
    Feb. 20, 1922.
   Geoman, P. J.,

The decree in divorce recommended by the master in this proceeding is largely based on declarations made to the wife in the presence of a witness by an alleged paramour of respondent.

A paramour voluntarily making statements, not under oath nor subject to cross-examination, is not entitled to much credence: Pleckel v. Heckel, 8 Dist. R. 27; such declarations, standing alone, will not justify a decree in divorce: Fairchild v. Fairchild, 1 Kulp, 400. Admissions and confessions, unsupported by other proof or corroborating circumstances, do not justify a decree on the ground of adultery: Quick v. Quick, 6 Kulp, 137.

Now, Feb. 20, 1922, decree in divorce refused.

From James L. Schaadt, Allentown, Pa.  