
    Nancy Boyd, per. pro. am. vs. John Boyd.
    
      When a wife applies to this court for alimony, her own conducl ■■ must not he impeachable with such violence or scevitia as might ■ provoke the husband to retaliate.
    
    The testimony which may be necessary to the understanding of this case is sufficiently referred to iii the decree of the piesiding chancellor.
    Chancellor James. The complainant has placed her claim to alimony, upon two grounds-: 1st. violence committed on her person by the husband; 2nd. adultery on his part: in the last she has failed, having adduced only a few suspicious circumstances. The first ground depends principally upon the testimony offered by the first witness, her daughter. She did not gee the blow given, but only heard the quarrel, and saw the defendant have a piece of board in his hand, and saw a cut or' bruise on complainant’s head- — other witnesses saw the same cut. Defendant in his answer, denies that he struck her, and says that he pushed her and she fell into her chair, and her head struck the corner of a table, hut that she had struck him the day before and called him a liar at that time. The answer is not controverted, and it is plain from the whole evidence that complainant has been much to blame. The defendant is a poor waggoner it seems, of rude manners and given to intoxication, hut I do not think his conduct evinces so much continued cruelty as to entitle complainant to alimony. A decree for alimony, I find from experience, amounts commonly to a separation for life, and if allowed, it must come out of defendant’s daily labor, and the wife appears to be as able to work as the husband. It is true the defendant, besides the implements of his trade, has some land, hut that is of trifling value. Let complainant seek to make her peace with him, and let him he bound, if necessary, to keep the peace towards her¿- The bill must be dismissed; each to pay his and her own -costs.
   On appeal

chancellor James

delivered the opinion of the court.'

The complainant brought her bill in the circuit court for alimony; which was refused, on the ground tfcat her own conduct was impeachable, and that the violence offered by the husband had been provoked by her, and had not been proved as grejU as was alledged. And now it becomes necessary to lay down as a general rule, that in all cases where a wife applies for alimony in this court, her own conduct must not be impeachable with such violence or scevitia as might provoke the husband to retaliate. The present case will afford an instance to elucidate the rule; the day before the violence alledged against the husband was offered, the wife had struck hi a, and at the time it was offered she called him a liar. These are considered sufficient reasons for refusing the complainant alimony. Therefore the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Gaillard, Desaussure and Thompson, concurred.  