
    
      Calhoun Circuit — In. Chancery.
    
    ELLEN DOE vs. JOHN DOE.
    
    
      Divorce — Impotence.
    Impotency not a ground for divorce unless the case is incurable.
    This was a bill for divorce exhibited by the wife on account of alleged incurable impotence in husband at the time of marriage.
    Answer denied fact of impotence, and alleged full capacity.
    This case came on for hearing on pleadings, and proofs taken in open court,
    January 6, 1882.
    
      
      Real names of parties omitted out of deference to them.
    
   The Court,

Hooker, J.,

Held: That the proofs did not sustain the allegation that the impotence was incurable, and on that ground dismissed the bill.

1 Bishop on Mar. and Div., Sections 381-339.

Puterbaugh’s Ch. Prac., (Power’s Ed.), 527.

Miner & Stace for Complainant.

Brown & Patterson for Defendant

Devenbagh vs. Devenbagh, 5 Paige Ch., 554, (28 Am. Dec., 344, and note.)

J. G. vs. H. G., 33 Md., 401; 3 Am. Rep., 183.

Powell vs. Powell, 26 Am. Rep., 774; 18 Kans., 371.

The burden of proof is upon the complainant to ■establish that the impotence existed at the time of the marriage.

Bishop on Mar. and Div.; Section 235.

Devenbagh vs. Devenbagh, Supra.  