
    LEAVITT v. LEAVITT.
    Divorce — separation without opposition — fear of having children.
    A divorce will be granted the parties if they have separated and divided the effects without opposition, if-it appear that the husband’s acquiescence arose from a desire of reconciliation. The wife’s fear of having too many children is no cause for separating from her husband and , continuing absent.
    Divorce — cause wilful absence more than three years. It ap^ peared in evidence that the parties were married in 1821, in Portage county, and lived-together about seven years, harmoniously, during which time she had three children. She became dissatisfied at having children so fast with their poor means of supporting them, and determined to leave him. She made no complaint except that she was as likely to have a dozen children as what she had, and she did not want such a family. She went to her father’s about five- miles ■ from her home, where she has since remained, having taken part of her effects and children. The husband went for her to return, but she refused, and,, being remonstrated with by the mother of the husband, repeated the fear of a large family, insisted it was best for them to be separated, and added^ ‘if our Savior was on earth, and I could submit my case to him, I have no doubt he would advise me to do just as I have done.’ She returned after several months and took away all the furniture she brought. . The parties and their family connection's were respectable, and in easy circumstances — it was also in evidence that the husband was ‘ rather slack? and did not accumulate property as fast as was desired.
   . -Be the Court.

' We continued this case last year, doubting the propriety of granting the divorce, and in the hope, then expressed, that the mutual friends of the parties would exert influence enough to reconcile their differences and bring them together again. That expectation has not been realized. We, at first, supposed this separation resulted from compromise, but the testimony establishes the husband’s desire that his wife should .continue with him, and leaves it to fair inference, that his making no resistance to her taking away her effects, arose rather from a desire of peace and reconciliation, than from any arrangement with her, for la division of their effect's and separate living. Upon the whole, we feel bound to decree a divorce, and the custody of the youngest' daughter to the mother. The father stands charged with her support, if needed, and will be enjoined from preventing the mother’s intercourse with the children.  