Blake v. Blake
Citations
- 70 Ill. 618
Syllabus
<p>1. Witness—credibility of hired detective. The testimony of a private detective hired by a husband to watch his wife, with a view of learning facts upon which to base a suit for a divorce, will be regarded with much suspicion, especially where it does not appear that his pay does not depend upon the successful efi'ect of his evidence.</p> <p>2. Same—aredibility as affected by the improbability of the testimony and feelings of witness. Where the story of two witnesses, sons of the complainant in a bill for divorce, is improbable in itself, and they are shown to be under the influence and control of their father, and very hostile towards their mother, the defendant, and the statements of one of them out of court is in conflict with his testimony, this will have the efi'ect to greatly impair and discredit their evidence.</p> <p>3. Evidence—adultery may be proved by circumstances. Adultery may be established by circumstantial evidence, but the proof must convince the mind affirmatively that actual adultery was committed, as nothing short of the carnal act can lay a foundation for a divorce.</p> <p>4. If a married woman is shown, by undoubted proof, to have been in an equivocal position with a man not her husband, leading to a suspicion, of adultery, and it is proved that she had previously shown an unwarrantable predilection for that man; that they had been detected in clandestine correspondence, had stolen interviews, made passionate declarations; that her affections were alienated from her husband, and that her mind and heart were already depraved, and nothing remained wanting but an opportunity to consummate the guilty purpose, then proof that such opportunity had occurred, will lead to the satisfactory conclusion that the act has been committed. But, when these circumstances are wanting, the proof of opportunity and equivocal appearances affords no evidence of adultery.</p> <p>5. Divobce—proof of adultery should be cleao\\ It being important to the well-being of
Judges: Beeese, Craig, McAllister, Scholfield, Scott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Anderson v. StegerIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-04-21· cited 61×
- Blake v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 40×
- Langley v. DevlinWashington Supreme Court· 1917-03-02· cited 31×
- Stevens-Davis Co. v. Mather & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1923-06-25· cited 15×
- Marcy v. MarcyIllinois Supreme Court· 1947-11-20· cited 11×
- Hoef v. HoefIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-10-28· cited 8×
- Gilbert v. LloydAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-04-19· cited 7×
- Fowler v. FowlerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1942-06-27· cited 6×
- DeLong v. GilesAppellate Court of Illinois· 1882-05-31· cited 2×
- McDonald v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-11-02· cited 2×
- Fontana v. FontanaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1918-05-03· cited 1×
- Stone v. BillingsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1896-03-31· cited 1×
- People v. SehrerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1915-12-08· cited 1×
- Majewski v. MajewskiAppellate Court of Illinois· 1946-03-08· cited 1×
- Enders v. EndersNew York Supreme Court· 1914-01-15
- Janeway v. BurtonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1902-06-05
- Paul v. PaulNew Jersey Court of Chancery· 1883-05-15
- Rivera v. State of FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2025-12-10
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.