
    *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 appeared 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 Eer effects and children. The husband went for her to return, but she Tefused, 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 Saviour 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 connections were respectable, and in easy circumstances — it was also in evidence that the husband was u rather slaclc” and did not accumulate property as fast as was desired.
   BY THE COURT.

We continued this caselastyear, doubtingthe 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 a division of their effects 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.  