
    Honoria Brown vs. John Brown.
    In a toil filed for divorce trader Sec, 3228 Cvmrp. Lain, for refusal to support, it is not necessaiy to aver any cruel treatment except what is involved in the gross, wanton and cruel neglect and refusal of the defendant to support his wile, he b eing of sufficient ability.
    Either party during the period allowed for taking proofs, may introduce any relevant testimony at any time before the proofs are closed.
    Appeal from Ionia Circuit.
   Opinion by

Cooley, J.

The hill in this base was filed to obtain a limited divorce and for alimony. The parties were .married November 10,1845, and the hill aVers, as the causefor divorce, inhuman and cruel treatment for the last three,or four years, and neglect t(^ support for the last year. The hill contains further allegations, showing the pecuniary ability of the defendant to support his wife well, and that she has always been faithful and devoted in her marital relations.. It was hot claimed by the' complainant that this bill would warrant a divorce for extreme cruelty, nor was the evidence in the case taken on any such theory." Oh the contrary, all the evidence is directed to the question of a gross, wanton and cruel neglect and refusal to support. A question is made in this Court of the sufficiency of the bill to warrant any decree fbr complainant, and the testimony taken appears to'have been objected-to on the ground that no case was made by 'the bill,- because the cruelty charged was hot set out with more particularity.

Meld, However, that a hill for divorce on the ground of refusal to support is sufficient. In suing for divorce on that ground it Was not necessary to aver any cruel treatment,’except what was involve 1 in the gross, wanton and cruel neglect and refusal of the defendant to support his wife, he being of sufficient ..ability. It appears, however, from the evidence, that the complainant is living ¿apart from the defendant and that while he reiuses to furnish her the means of support away from Lis home, he nevertheless expresses a willingness to receive <md support her there. The bill was sufficient, the pleadings were correct, and the evidence was admissible under them..

The Court took the occasion to remark upon a matter of practice. It seems that the Circuit Court Commissioner regarded it as his duty to hold the parties to the same order of proof to which they would be held in h, trial at law, and he accordingly refused to take cortain evidence, because, though relevant to the party’s case or defense, it was not brought forward by the party .until the time for rebutting testimony', and was not rebutting in character.

Held, That the Commissioner lias mistaken the practice. Either party, during the period allowed by the rules for taking proofs, hi s a right to take his testimony in any order he may choose, and the complainant is not precluded from offering proof in support of his original case by the fact that the defendant has gone into or gone over his defense. The same is true of the defendant. He may put iu any relevant testimony at any time before the proofs are closed.  