¶1Decree affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.
¶2For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Depue, Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Lippincott, Gummere, Ludlow, Collins,. Bogert, Hendrickson, Adams, Nixon — 13.
¶3For reversal — None.
59 N.J. Eq. 642
Warn v. Warn
Decided November 20, 1899
Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1899-11-20
I am convinced that the defendant was guilty -of the adulterous acts charged. Her habits of inebriety destroyed her sense of modesty, and the gratification of her taste for liquor was the bribe by which her virtue was successfully assaulted.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1916
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1899-11-20
View the full empirical analysis of this case →