
    Mollie A. Palese vs. Andrew J. Palese.
    Divorce—Pleading—Defenses.
    _ Where the defense in an action for divorce is adultery on the part of the plaintiff, the better practice is to file an answer setting up the adulterous acts relied upon, with the same particularity as would be required in a petition alleging adulterjr as a ground for divorce.
    
      (June 14, 1917.)
    Judges Rice and Heisel, sitting.
    
      Armon D. Chaytor, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
      Frank L. Speakman for defendant.
    Superior Court, New Castle County,
    May Terra, 1917.
    Action for Divorce, No. 45,
    January Term, 1917.
    Action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty by Mollie A. Palese against Andrew J. .Palese. Plaintiff given an opportunity to file an answer, setting up defense sought to be raised by evidence.
    At the trial, it was sought to introduce testimony to prove adultery on the part of the plaintiff. Objection was made that no answer setting up such a defense had been filed by defendant. It was contended in reply that the practice did not require the filing of such an answer, except in cases where the ground for divorce is adultery.
   Rice, J.:

The court is of the opinion that, where the defense in an action for divorce is adultery on the part of the plaintiff, the better practice would be, and should be, to file an answer setting up the adulterous acts relied upon, with the same particularity as would be required in a petition alleging adultery as a ground for divorce. As the practice has been somewhat unsettled up to this time, we will give the defendant in this case reasonable opportunity to file an answer. If that can be done during the noon recess, the plaintiff may then elect whether he will proceed with the hearing or ask for a continuance.  