
    Enoch D. Cowles vs. Frances M. Cowles.
    The utter denial of sexual intercourse on the part of a wife is not cruel and abusive treatment entitling the husband to a divorce under St. 1870, c. 404, § 2; neither is it a cause for annulling the marriage.
    Libel eor divorce, in which the libellant set forth that he was married to Frances M. Dickinson, June 7, 1871; that soon after their marriage he and his wife commenced housekeeping, and that with occasional absences of the wife they continued to occupy the same house till April, 1872, since which time she has ceased to live with him ; that she from the time of their marriage had been guilty of cruel and abusive treatment of him, in refusing to have any sexual intercourse "with him, and had never had such intercourse, and had ever refused to have it. Wherefore he prayed that the bonds of matrimony between them might be dissolved.
    The libellee was defaulted, and the libel was heard before Wells, J., who refused to grant either a divorce or a decree qf nullity, solely on the ground that the utter denial of sexual intercourse was not a cause for which such a decree in either form could be made by the court. The libellant excepted.
    
      E. Dickinson, 'for the libellant.
   Colt, J.

This libel for divorce alleges cruel and abusive treatment only. In support of it the wife’s utter denial of sexual intercourse is relied on. It is not now contended that any other cause of divorce exists.

Such conduct is not to be regarded, within a reasonable inserpretation of the provision of St. 1870, c. 404, § 2, as cruel and abusive treatment. Under the like provision of Gen. Sts. c. 107, § 9, it has been held that the cruelty charged must appear to be such “ as shall cause injury to life, limb, or health, or create a danger of such injury, or a reasonable apprehension of such danger.” Bailey v. Bailey, 97 Mass. 373. Peabody v. Peabody, 104 Mass. 195. Southwick v. Southwick, 97 Mass. 327.

It plainly does not go to the original validity of the marriage, and affords no ground for declaring the nullity of it.

Exceptions overruled,.  