
    John Fraser, petitioner-respondent, v. Mary F. Fraser, defendant-appellant.
    [Decided January 5th, 1934.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, who filed the following opinion:
    “Petitioner sues for divorce. He charges his wife with adultery with one Philip Coleman in August and September 1932, at Scranton, Pennsylvania. In support of this charge Mrs. Bahr testified that defendant said to her that she would rather live with Philip Coleman in a hut than continue living with petitioner. Mrs. Ubansky testified that on Sunday, August 28th, 1932, defendant with Coleman left the house where she was staying and did not return until the following day; that on Monday afternoon she again left the house saying that she was going to the Eastman Hotel to see ‘Phil’ — she returned the foliowing_ day. This is all the evidence in support of the charge and it is not enough since the charge is denied.
    “The petitioner further alleges as ground, for divorce that on sundry days between August 27th and September 6th, 1932, Mrs. Eraser committed adultery with Felix (‘Bill’) Leo at 305 Franklin avenue, Scranton. .
    “305 Franklin avenue is a three-family house, on the second floor of which lives a cousin of the .'defendant, William Engle, with his wife and two children, age thirteen and eleven years. Their apartment contains ;six rooms. At the front on the left is a parlor and on the right a bedroom. The parlor can only be reached through another bedroom, which has a window on the side of the house overlooking a gasoline station. The gasoline station lot is fifty feet wide extending to a side street, Liden avenue.
    “In back of the second bedroom is a small hall and beyond it two other bedrooms and the kitchen. , The kitchen and one of these bedrooms have entrances from the hall. Whether the last bedroom has such an entrance or whether it must be reached through the kitchen I do not know. A bathroom is also reached from the hall.
    “The Frasers lived in Jersey City. On -August 19th, 1932, Mrs. Fraser went to Scranton to visit the Engles. Her husband, suspicious, engaged Mrs. Ubansky to watch his wife. Mrs. Ubansky went to Scranton on Saturday, August 27th, went t.o 305 Franklin avenue and hired a furnished room in the Engle flat. She was given the room just in back of the hallway and adjoining the kitchen. She ¿found Mrs. Fraser occupying the room on the other side of the hallway and between it and the parlor. She testifies to the following occurrences: The evening of the day she arrived Leo called and was introduced to her by Mrs. Fraser as ‘Bill, my boy friend.’ Mrs. Fraser and ‘Bill’ went out, returned at two o’clock, went to bed together in the former’s room. 13111’ left at seven a. m. the following morning and Mrs. Ubansky heard Mrs. Eraser tell him to return Thursday night. He returned, however, the evening of Tuesday, August 30th, but stayed only a little while. On Thursday evening, September 1st, ‘Bill’ came again bringing with him another woman. All in the flat had a ‘beer party.’ The woman visitor left at midnight. Mrs. Eraser at that time was quite drunk. ‘Bill’ undressed her and stayed with her in her room until two o’clock and then left.
    “On Saturday, September 3d, Mrs. Ubansky left the house at five p. m. to meet a private detective, Sanderson, who had been sent to Scranton by petitioner. She and Sanderson returned to the house at eleven p. m. ‘Bill’ was there. Sander-son remained until after midnight. ‘Bill’ spent the night with Mrs. Eraser. His automobile, license BA-279, was in front of the house all night.
    “Marie Engle, age nineteen, a sister of William Engle, testified for petitioner. She had been staying with her cousin, Mrs. Eraser, in Jersey City and went with her to Scranton, but after a few days continued to Wilkes-Barre to visit her mother. She returned to Scranton, Saturday, September 3d. She testified that Leo spent either that night or Sunday night with Mrs. Eraser. Marie had expected to share the room occupied by Mrs. Eraser, but she was asked by Mrs. Engle, as well as by Mrs. Eraser, to sleep with Mrs. Ubansky, so that ‘Bill’ could say (stay) with Mrs. Eraser. On cross-examination she said that on Sunday night Mrs. Eraser’s sister and child joined the household and stayed in Mrs. Eraser’s room and that she, Marie, that night slept with Mrs. Ubansky. Further, she did not see ‘Bill’ after one p. m. Saturday night and she did not see him in Mrs. Eraser’s bedroom or see him the following morning. Sanderson testified that he called at 305 Franklin avenue the evening of Saturday, September 3d and remained there until two p. m. He was in the kitchen most of the time. He observed a dark-haired man in the parlor with Mrs. Eraser. The car with license BA-279 was in front of the house. Petitioner testified that he went to Scranton, Saturday, September 3d, with a private detective named Ranson; that he stood outside of the house most of the night until six a. m.; that the automobile with the license number mentioned was standing outside until he left the neighborhood; that from the side street he could see in the bedroom and saw Mrs. Fraser in what appeared to be a pink kimono with a man in shirt sleeves.
    “Mrs. Fraser, Mr. Engle and ‘Bill’ testified denying in detail the petitioner’s ease. They said that Leo was a close friend of Engle and came to see him a couple of times during Mrs. Fraser’s visit. Mrs. Fraser said that they waited up late Saturday night expecting petitioner to come from Jersey City; but she had received a special delivery letter that day in which he said that his automobile was at the shop for repairs and that he hoped to be able to get it Sunday.
    “Mrs. Ubansky was a remarkably clear and convincing witness, never confused in details. The only difficulty I find with her story is that Mrs. Fraser should have been so frank with Mrs. Ubansky on such short acquaintance. Neither Engle nor his sister, Marie, was at all impressive. Leo gave just the testimony expected from him whether he be innocent or guilty. I find that Leo spent the night of Saturday, September 3d, with defendant and that they committed adultery. Petitioner may have a decree of divorce nisi."
    
    
      Messrs. Green & Green (Mr. David Green, of counsel; Mr. Nelson K. Mintz, on the brief), for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. Rosenberg, Ross & King (Mr. Maximilian T. Rosenberg, of counsel), for the respondent. ■ ■
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Bigelow in the court of chancery.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Tren chard, Parser, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.  