
    PETER VAN VOORHEES v. SARAH VAN VOORHEES.
    Divorce — separation by agreement not wilful absence — adultery.
    An agreement between man and wife to divide their effects, and the subsequent separation cannot lay the foundation for a divorce for wilful absence.
    Adultery cannot be proven under a general allegation in a bill of divorce.
    Divorce — cause wilful absence, neglect of duty, adultery with married and unmarried men, and having a bastard.
    It appeared in evidence that the parties were married in March, 1824, and lived together three years. About six months after the marriage, she had a child which lived a few hours, which the husband kept secret, and continued to live with her. They disagreed, and after three years separated by consent, divided their little effects, and have since lived separately. Her character since they separated has not been good — his is good.
   By the Court.

There is no evidence of wilfu.1 absence on the part of the defendant, more than on the part of the corñplainant. The absence was the result of their agreement. The neglect of the marriage duties, if any, results from the same cause. No adultery is, or could be proven under the allegations of the bill. Parties cannot by their own agreement lay a foundation for a divorce— our law does not sanction this. The bill must be dismissed.  