
    JACOB WOLF v. FRANCES M. WOLF.
    Divorce — suspicion of unfairness — collusion.
    Where the case disclosed is a suspicious one, or it appear that any thing has been kept back, a divorce will not be decreed.
    Where there is collusion between the parties a divorce will not be decreed.
    Divorce. Cause wilful absence more than three years. The defendant in her answer denied that she left the complainant’s house, but alleged that she attended to her duties, until at his request she left him, in'order that he might -get a wife more suited to his character. As the cause was called on to hearing, leave was asked and obtained by the defendant, to withdraw her answer.
    Several witnesses were examined by the plaintiff.
    
      Abbot Goddard said he was present when the parties separated. The defendant said she would not live'with-him another day; she did not love him when she married him, but did not know but she should. He said he-would not pay her board, but if she returned she would find a friend in J. Wolf.
    
      William Wolf.J (son of the plaintiff.) The defendant left four years ago next August, because she did not attend to her duty. They lived together about three months after the marriage.
    
      Emily Sullivan said she lived at Wolf’s after the marriage. Mrs. Wolf left of her own accord. She spent one night, or perhaps two nights with her husband alone. Sometimes she was at meeting and sometimes she was elsewhere. They did not enjoy life well. He did not like her going to meeting, and spoke to her about it. She ■said she would come and go when she pleased. She did not attend to the domestic concerns. They were married in a few weeks after their first acquaintance. . She went to Mrs. James’ her relative, and has been there ever since.
    
      Mrs. Huston, was sent to the defendant by the plaintiff to tell her that he wanted an interview, that he wanted to see her. She said he was an old Wolf, and might stay in his den — he was an old rascal —she said she did not love him when she married him, but did not know but she might, and she would have nothing to do with him. She supposed he was rich and pious, but found he was neither.
    
      Mrs. Smith said the defendant never complained of any ill treatment. She said she could not live with him and save her soul, which was her all.
    
   By the Court.

We find it impossible to shake off the suspicion, that the true state of this case is not disclosed to us. The conduct of the parties, the withdrawal of the answer, the matter stated in it, the manner of the separation, and the subsequent acts and declarations, excite suspicion. It is incredible, that the relation of man ahd wife should have been broken up, for the only reason disclosed in evidence. There must be something kept back by collusion, or otherwise. In this state of the case, the plaintiff may dismiss his bill, without prejudice, or continue it, as he shall be advised.

The cause was continued.

May term, 1834, the cause was again brought-to hearing, and further evidence heard. A divorce was decreed, and the plaintiff ordered to pay two hundred and fifty dollars alimony.  