
    JULIUS G. BLAKELY v. LOUISE H. BLAKELY.
    (Filed 31 October, 1923.)
    1. Div orce — Man! age — Condonation.
    
      Held, in a suit for divorce a vinculo, condonation of the wife’s adulterous act is the forgiveness of the offense on condition that she will abstain from like offense thereafter, and upon the condition violated, the original offense is revived.
    a. Same — Pleadings—Evidence—Burden of Proof — Defenses—Actions.
    Where the wife relies upon the condonation of her adulterous conduct in defense to the husband’s suit for a divorce a vinculo, it is not required that the husband negative the defense of condonation in his complaint, but it is for. the wife to allege and prove it, as an affirmative defense.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Oranmer, J., at June Term, 1923, of Wake.
    Civil action for divorce absolute. . On issues submitted, tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict:
    “1. Has plaintiff been a resident of tbe State of North Carolina for two years next preceding tbe commencement of tbis action, as alleged? Answer: 'Yes.’
    “2. Were plaintiff and defendant married to each other, as "alleged? Answer: 'Yes.’
    “3. Did tbe defendant commit adultery, as alleged in tbe complaint ? Answer: 'No.’”
    Judgment on verdict for defendant, and plaintiff' excepted and appealed.
    
      Finlator & Eastman, S. W. Eason and Douglass & Douglass for plaintiff.
    
    
      Ohas. U. Harris for defendant.
    
   Hoke, J.

On tbe trial, plaintiff offered evidence tending to show tbe alleged adultery of tbe wife in tbe year 1921. On objection tbe evidence was excluded, tbe court stating that be would not permit any evidence of adultery prior to March, 1922, tbe date of final separation of tbe parties, for tbe reason that plaintiff bad not negatived condonation in bis complaint, and in our opinion the exception of plaintiff to tbis ruling must be sustained. Condonation is properly understood to be tbe forgiveness of an offense on condition that tbe party will abstain from like offenses thereafter, and if tbe condition is violated tbe original offense is revived. Lassiter v. Lassiter, 92 N. C., 129. It is very generally regarded as a specific affirmative defense to be alleged and proved by tbe party insisting upon it and is not required to be negatived by tbe opposing pleader. White v. White, 171 Va., 244; Odom v. Odom, 36 Ga., 386; 9 R. C. L., 386. And decision of our own Court, in Kinney v. Kinney, 149 N. C., 321; Steel v. Steel, 104 N. C., 631-638, and other cases, are in full approval of the general principle. Even when set forth in the pleadings as required, not being in the nature of a eounterclause, the allegations would be taken as denied by the plaintiff. C. S., sec. 543.

There is error and plaintiff is entitled to a new trial of the cause.

Reversed.  