
    Delilah Snover vs. Samuel Snover.
    Charges of adultery are improper in a bill which prays for a divorce a menta et thoro only.
    So much of the evidence as related to acts of adultery suppressed.
    
      Sherrard and W. L. Dayton, for complainant.
    
      D. A. Depue and J. S. Nevius for defendant.
   The Chancellor.

The bill prays for a divorce from bed and board. He charges specific acts of adultery, besides setting out sufficient acts of extreme cruelty to entitle the complainant to relief on the latter ground. The evidence taken is very voluminous, and a very large portion of it relates to acts of adultery committed by the defendant with individuals other than those named in the bill. As the bill prays for a divorce a mensa, et thoro only, the charges of adnltcry were improperly introduced into the bill. The defendant, however, answered the bill, and the cause having been put at issue, the parties proceeded to take their testimony. At the hearing on behalf of the defendant, it was moved that so much of the evidence as relates to acts of adultery ought to be suppressed. The complainant has not sought relief in this court for a dissolution of the marriage bond on the ground of adultery. The grmama/n of her bill is extreme cruelty, and she asks the relief provided by the statute for such a grievance. This question has been more than once decided in this court, and upon these authorities the evidence must be suppressed. I observed on an examination of the depositions, that the evidence, when offered before the master, was objected to. Laying aside this evidence, there is abundance in the case to entitle the complainant to the decree she asks for.

The bill prays also for alimony. There is no need of referring this matter to a master, as I have all the evidence before me which would enable the master to determine the amount proper to be allowed. The defendant is a cripple, having but one of his arms. He has considerable real estate, which, however, is not very productive. The complainant has a legacy secured to her of $1,200. It appears to me that, under the circumstance, an allowance of two dollars and a half a week would be proper. The defendant must pay the taxed costs of this suit. The costs of the suppressed evidence must be deducted. An additional allowance of fifty dollars for counsel feés will be allowed.

There are eight children. The youngest is a little girl of seven years of age, and it is proper she should be provided for. The defendant’s counsel objected to any interference with the children. It is true the bill does not pray any decree in reference to their provision or disposition. But their situation is before me, and the decree to be made in this case respecting the parents affects their welfare. It is the duty of the court to protect such of them as require its care. Looking at the character of the case, I think it is proper that the youngest child should remain with the -mother, and that the father should pay a proper sum for her support. Seventy-five cents a week will be allowed for that object.

All these allowances are subject to the order of the court, from time to time, upon the application of • either party.

Payment must be made quarter yearly by the defendant. If the parties cannot agree upon the security, there must be a reference to a master.  