
    James S. Bibby v. Sarah Bibby.
    In a suit by a husband for divorce on the ground of his wife’s adultery, the fact that the alleged paramour of the wife was within reach of process at the time of examining the witnesses, and was not called to testify on behalf of the wife’s innocence, is significant, and corroborative of the other witnesses’ testimony as to her guilt.
    Petition for divorce. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs
    
      Mr. 8. Tuttle, for petitioner.
    
      Mr. W. IT. Francis, for defendant.
    The chancellor, after reviewing the testimony, concluded that the adultery of the wife had been sufficiently proved to decree a divorce in the husband’s favor. He then said:
   THE CHANCELLOR.

While the defendant was not a competent witness in her own behalf to disprove the imputed adultery, Young, her alleged paramour, was, and he appears to have been in Paterson during the examination of witnesses in this cause. He might have been called, but was not. The defendant has chosen rather to come to the hearing without his testimony. The fact that she did not call him is an important circumstance in corroboration of the testimony of the Mellors, and of much significance in reaching a conclusion as to her guilt.

There will be a decree of divorce.  