
    MARY F-, LIBELLANT, versus SAMUEL F-.
    Where a wife prajs for% divorce, on the ground of the voluntary absence of the husband for three years together, without making suitable provision for her support, it must appear that the husband has been possessed of property out of which he might have made such provision ; otherwise a divorce will not be decreed.
    THIS was a libel for a divorce, a vinculo. The libellant alleged, as a cause of divorce, that her husband, the said S. F., had willingly absented himself from her for the space of three years together, without making suitable provision for her support and maintenance, although it was in his power so to do. It appeared from the testimony, that the said S. F. was a laboring man, and that during his absence he had been in good health and able to labor, but it did not appear that he had been possessed of any property whatever.
   Per curiam.

The evidence is not sufficient to authorize us to decree a divorce in this case. No neglect of a husband in cases of this kind, to make provision for his wife’s support, is a good cause of divorce, unless it was in his power so to do : and we are of opinion that the husband cannot be considered as having the power to make such provision, within the meaning of the statute, unless he has property. It is not enough to shew that he has been able to labor; it must be distinctly shewn that he has actually had property sufficient to enable him to make such provision.  