
    Williams, libellant, vs. Williams.
    In a libel for divorce a mensa et thoro, the Court will require evidence of tlie marriage, even though the respondent does not appear, to answer to the libel.
    
    This was a libel for divorce a mensa et thoro for the cruelty of the husband; who did not appear to answer to the libel.
    Clark, for the libellant,
    was proceeding to offer evidence of the acts of cruely charged in the libel, when the Court called on him for proof of the marriage. He cited Hill v. Hill 2 Mass. 150. to shew that it was not the practice to offer proof of this fact, unless it were denied.
   But the Court

said that possibly the other party might not have had actual knowledge of the pendency of the libel, even though it may have been served or published as the law requires; —and as the consequences of the divorce might seriously affect his estate in the matter of alimony, they would not decree a divorce from bed and board, until it should appear that the parties had been legally married, and that the libellant was thereby entitled to her alimony by law.  