The opinion of the court was delivered by
We have not been furnished with a copy of- the petition in this case, but infer from what is stated in the exceptions, that the cause alleged in it was adultery by the libellee, committed within this State. The first question presented is аs to the residence of the libellant. No question is made but that at the timе the petition was brought,, and when it was heard in the County Court, his residence was in Orleans County; but the libellee claims that in order to give the court jurisdiction, the libellant must have resided in Orleans County one full year previous to the term of court to which the petition was preferred.
The next question made was as to the right of the libellant to рrosecute his petition in his own name. At the time of bringing it he was under guardianshiр. A guardian had been appointed for him upon an applicаtion made under s. 18, c. 72, of the Gen. Sts., which provides for such appointmеnt in cases of what are denominated “ spendthrifts,” with a view to the protection and care of their property for the interest of themselves, their families, and whoever else may be interested. Such a guаrdianship is justifiable upon the theory that the ward is incapable of mаnaging and controlling his own pecuniary affairs; while the guardianship of an insane person is justified upon a total want of capacity in thе ward. And the rule that is laid down in Holden v. Scanlin,
The only remaining question is as to the admissibility as evidence of the confessions of guilt made by the libellee. Such confessions are not excluded by аny statute. Sec. 15, c. 70, provides. that no sentence of nullity of marriage shall be pronounced solely on the .declarations or confession of the parties ; thus leaving the question of their admissibility to depend upon the rules of evidence, and only limiting the effect or weight to be given to them when admitted. Inhere can be no question but that under the common-law rules of evidence the confession was admissible.
Judgment affirmed.