
    Abigail Warren, Libellant, versus William Warren.
    A neglect of a husband to provide a support for his wife, whereby she and her children are reduced to great distress, is no cause of divorce a mensa et thora.
    
    This was a libel for a divorce a mensa et thora, for the cause of extreme cruelty.
    The evidence was that the husband had deserted the libellant, and been absent eight years, in consequence of which she and her children had suffered very great privations, and been much distressed.
    
      Tyler Bigelow, for the libellant.
   Parsons, C. J.

The extreme cruelty in the statute means personal violence, and answers to the ssevitia of the civil law. A mere neglect to provide a support for his family, however immoral and unworthy, is not a sufficient cause for a divorce .

The Court dismissed the libel. 
      
      
        [Hill vs. Hill, 2 Mass. 150.—Sed quiere de hoc. Every thing is scemtia which tends to bodily harm, and in that manner renders cohabitation unsafe.—Holden vs. Holden, 1 Hag. Eccles. R. 458.—The definition of legal cruelty is that which may endanger the life or health of the party.—Waring vs. Waring, 2 Phill. 132,133.—It may be without actual violence.—Hulme vs. Hulme, 2 Ad. 27.—Otway vs. Otway, 2 Phil. 95.—But there must be a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt.—Evans vs. Evans, 1 Hagg. 39, 40.—Words of menace, accompanied with probable danger of bodily harm, will constitute crueltj'.—Daguillar vs. Daguillar, 1 Hagg. 775.—Oliver vs. Oliver, 1 Hagg. 364.—Kirkman vs. Kirkman, 1 Hagg. 409.—It may be enough if the words inflict indignity, and threaten pain.—Kirkman vs. Kirkman, ub. sup.; but there must be a reasonable apprehension of injury to the person or health of the party resulting therefrom.—Harris vs. Harris, 2 Hagg. C. R. 148, 149, S. G. 2 Phill. Ill; and see Perkins vs. Perkins, 6 Mass. 69; and when this is the case, it is not material whether they be addressed to the party, or to a third person.—Daguillar vs. Daguillar, 1 Hagg. R. 776.—A husband’s attempt to debauch his own woman-servant is a strong act of cruelty.—Durant vs. Durant, 1 Hagg. 768__Cruelty may be relative, and depend on the age, habits, &c., of the party.—Daguillar vs. Daguillar, 1 Hagg. R. 782.—The complaint generally proceeds from the wife, as the weaker person; but it may, accord ing to the ecclesiastical law, come from the man, and has so done in several cases. —Sir John Nichols in Waring vs. Waring, 2 Phill. 132,133.—Ed.]
     