1. Held, that there was both inclination and opportunity for the defendant wife to commit adultery with her former husband and that at the time she lived in the same house with him, and during the events leading up to her return to him, she was mentally responsible for her conduct.
2. There is no proof in this case that at the time when the alleged adultery occurred she was so bereft of her reason that she was unable to distinguish the nature of her conduct. Her nervousness and hysteria were the result of that conduct, rather than vice versa.
3. Nothing short of insanity so pronounced that the defendant is unable to appreciate the nature of her conduct, will suffice to excuse adultery.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Advisory Master Grosman, delivered in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.