
    W. A. ROBERSON vs. A. C. ROBERSON.
    SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,
    AUSTIN TERM, 1884.
    
      Divorce — Evidence.—See tlie opinion for evidence in a suit for divorce brought by the husband against thewjft^heldjnsuflieient to authorize a decree, inasmuch as it does not show that the abandonment charged was not caused by, procured by ~or consented to by him._ _'
    Appeal from Brown county.
    
      G-.I. Goodrich, for the appellant.
    STATEMENT.
    This suit was brought by appellant against appellee, March 1st, 1881.
    He alleged that he and defendant, Amanda C. Roberson, were married in Keutucky in 1844; that they lived together in that state until the year 1868, when she “wilfully, voluntarily, and without any cause or provocation abandoned his bed and board,” and had never returned. He also avers that she left him with the intention of perpetual abandonment.
    A general denial was filed by defendant March 27th, 1882. On same day trial was had by the court without a jury and judgment rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
    On the trial plaintiff introduced John H. Roberson the only witness. He testified that plaintiff and defendant were married in Kentucky thirty years ago, and lived together until 1869, when defendautleft and went to Memphis, Tenn., where she remained until 1872, when she went to the house of witness in the state of Missouri, where she remained a short time. She then went to California where she has been ever since.
    Witness states that plaintiff had a comfortable home, and he does not know why defendant left plaintiff. Plaintiff had resided in Brown county several years before the filing of the suit. This is all the evidence.
    Plaintiff assigns as error the judgment of the court.
   OPINION.

In our opinion there is no error in the judgment of the court below. Every fact attested by the witness in this case might be true, and yet the defendant might have been driven from her home by the plaintiff, or at least, she might have left it with his consent.

In accordance with the rule announced in McGown vs. McGown, (52 Tex. 567,) the plaintiff should have produced at least some reasonable measure of proof, that he “neither caused, nor procured, nor consented to the separation.”

The plaintiff’s evidence falls far short of this. The judgment should be affirmed.

Report of commissioners Of appeals adopted and the judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Delaney, Commissioner,

adopted.  