
    Laura B. Shaw, respondent, v. Thomas F. Shaw, appellant.
    [Decided May 3d, 1918.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, who filed the following opinion:
    My doubt, in this cause has been whether the parties were not living apart by tacit consent. The testimony of the wife is that on her return from Europe in September, 1912, her husband, on the steamship wharf, said to her: “I have no plans for your future. I have no place to take you and I have no home for you.” In this she is corroborated by her daughter and son-in-law. She has lived in her daughter’s house ever since. She does not appear to’ have made any considerable effort to induce her husband to provide a home, although he has been able to do so. On the other hand, it is proved that the defendant has made no effort to induce her to live with him. In view of Sargent v. Sargent, 36 N. J. Eq. 644, a case which decides that the duty to make the effort lies chiefly on the husband and which is in some respects not unlike the present, I am inclined to think the evidence sufficient to establish the desertion alleged.
    
      Mr. Harry N. Reeves, for the respondent.
    
      Messrs. Mulligan & Koenig, for the appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Stevens.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 13.

For reversal — None.  