
    Lizzie Huling v. John Huling.
    
      Divorce—Adultery—Desertion.
    
    Desertion, set up by way of recrimination, is not an answer to a bill for divorce charging adultery.
    [Opinion filed September 20, 1890.]
    In ERROBto the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. O. T. Eeeves, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. Frank E. Henderson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Messrs. Joiih T. Lillard and Isaac ÍT. Phillips, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

The single question presented by this record is, whether desertion, set up by way of recrimination, is a good answer to a hill for divorce charging adultery; and although the rulings upon it elsewhere seem to be variant, we think that for this State it is decisively answered in the negative by the case of Bast v. Bast, 82 111. 584.

Decree affirmed.  