
    John Haskell vs. Mary A. Haskell.
    Middlesex.
    March 4, 1890.
    June 21, 1890.
    Present: Field, Devens, W. Allen, Holmes, & Knowlton, JJ.
    Divorce— Custody of Children.
    
    A husband obtaining a divorce from his wife for her bigamy and adultery is not entitled, as matter of law, to the custody of their children.
    Libel for divorce, dated January 1, 1889, brought by a husband against his wife for bigamy and adultery, in which he prayed for the custody of their two sons, about five and six years old respectively. At the hearing in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., there was evidence in support of the averments of the libel, and no misconduct was shown on the part of the libellant.
    The libellant asked the judge to rule: “ If the court find that the libellee has committed bigamy or adultery, it follows, as a legal consequence, that she ought not to have the care and training of the libellant’s sons, unless the court finds that the libellant is not a suitable person to have such care and custody; also, that, in the absence of misconduct on the part of the libellant, it is not within the discretion of the court to give the custody of his children to the libellee, if she has deliberately committed bigamy or adultery.”
    The judge granted a divorce nisi to the libellant, but declined so to rule, or to give him the custody of the two sons; and ordered that during their tender years, and until the further order of the court, they should remain in the custody of the libellee, and be supported by her, but should not be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and that the libellant should have an opportunity to see them with reasonable frequency. The libellant alleged exceptions.
    
      0. Qowley, for the libellant.
    
      D. 0. Allen, for the libellee.
   Field, J.

We know of no absolute rule of law that the father is entitled to the custody of the children when he obtains a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of bigamy and adultery committed by the wife. We see no error of law in the exceptions. Whether the justice who tried the libel, in view of all the facts appearing at the trial, exercised a sound discretion is a question not before us. See Oliver v. Oliver, 151 Mass. 349. Exceptions overruled.  