
    Mary Barry v. John Barry.
    1824. April 1.
    A final decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, is not made merely upon talcing the bill pro confesso in the usual form. The real facts of the case must first be ascertained.
    Bill for a divorce, a mensa et thoro, for the cause of eraelty.
    Mr. Conkling was opening the cause for a final decree, when the chancellor asked whether it came up upon a verdict on a feigned issue, or upon a master’s report ?
    Mr. Conkling. Neither. The bill has been taken pro confesso in the usual way, and in pursuance of the statute.
   The Court.

The statute is not imperative in that respect. It seems very proper to have the facts before the court on actual proof, otherwise a divorce may be procured by collusion. The bill states the facts of cruel treatment, upon which a divorce is sought; but it gives no other exposition of the circumstances of the parties.

A divorce, in this case, is not like that for adultery. Here it may be decreed for life, or for a limited time; and the statute authorizes the court to dispose of the custody of the children, and to make order for the support of the wife, and the disposition of her separate property. These are things which can not be done safely and discreetly, otherwise than upon regular proof of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The master should also report his opinion as to the proper person to have the custody of the children.

Let an order of reference to a master be entered accordingly.  