
    William Richardson, Libellant, versus Lucy Richardson
    A libel for a divorce filed in a county into which the libellant has removed, leav tog the respondent in another county, will not be sustained.
    This was a libel for a divorce a vinculo, for adultery. The libel lant describes himself as now resident in Wareham, in the county of Plymouth, and formerly of Mount Desert, in the county of Hancock. The respondent is described as living in the county of Hancock, where notice of this libel was served upon her. It appeared, also, that the marriage was had at Blue Hill, in the same county.
   Per Curiam.

The statute gives the Court jurisdiction only in the county where the parties live. This is an attempt to evade the statute, and must not be countenanced. Without deciding the case, where the party charged with adultery shall have left his or her domicile, we are clearly of opinion that, in this case, where the party complaining has only changed his residence, and the other party continues at the place of her former dwelling, the libel ought not to be sustained in the county where the former resides.

Libel dismissed. 
      
      
         Moore vs. Moore, ante, 117. — Et vide Lane vs. Lane, post, 167. — Squire vs Squire, 3 Mass. Rep. 184. — Merry vs. Merry, 12 Mass. Rep. 312.
     