
    JAMES SCOTT v. HANNAH SCOTT.
    Divorce — adultery—reputation—’separation—wilful absence.
    A man will not be supposed to have committed adultery, while wife and child are on the same bed with him.
    The wife’s general reputation for being lewd will not strengthen the supposition, nor be sufficient evidence of adultery, because she had a child while living separate from her husband, if so near that he might be supposed to have access to her.
    Wilful absence will not be presumed against circumstances tending to show the separation by the procurement of the party alleging it.
    Divorce. Cause, adultery with one Danforth, and wilful absence. It appeared the parties were married five years since in Guernsey, and lived more than a year together. She had a full grown child about five months after the marriage. She left her husband, and went to live at Danforth’s, where she continued some time. What occasioned the separation is not explained; nor does it appear that he went for her to return, or that she refused to return. There is proof, that while living at Danforth’s, in a cabin with one room and two beds, Danforth, with his wife and child, and Mrs. Scott, lay altogether, though not undressed, one night, on one bed, the other remaining unoccupied. Mrs. Scott had a child in about two years after she left her husband. They lived but a few miles apart. His character was good.
    
      W. B. Hubbard, for the plaintiff,
    offered to prove her reputation that of a lewd woman.
   Rsr the Court.

The proof of the defendant’s general reputation would not conduce to make out adultery in the case of the lying on , the bed with Danforth, and no other facts to strengthen the presumption are offered, even if such evidence was admissible for that purpose. It can hardly be supposed that Danforth committed adultery with this woman, while his wife and child were lying beside him. As to the child, it may be the petitioner’s; they lived within a few miles of each other, and may have had intercourse; there should be some proof more than we have, that he did not see her. The absence of the wife may have been by the procurement of the husband; ,at any rate, there is no evidence it was wilful on her part, or against his will; but there is evidence from which it may be inferred, the absence was by his ' procurement. Bill dismissed without prejudice.  