
    MILLY FRIEND v. NATHAN FRIEND.
    Divorce — wilful absence — diplomacy—interference of friends.
    When both parties appear in fault, and the case is doubtful on the evidence,, the case may be continued.
    If the husband having left his wife two months and return and make efforts, to live with her, which have failed from any cause, he cannot be regarded as wilfully absent from her.
    If the case appear to the court arranged or brought forward so as not to disclose the true state of facts, it will dismiss or continue.
    If the wife is prevented from uniting with her husband by the coercion of her parents, the court, on proper application, will restrain them from interfering, and take measures to bring the husband and wife together.
    Divorce. Wilful absence since the 1st of November, 1829.
    
      Anthony and Mason for the petitioner.
    
      Bayles and M. Corwin for the defendant.
    Proof was made of the marriage in September, 1828, in Fayettecounty, of her good character, and that she was a sickly woman. The parties lived together at her father’s. They had two children the last was born in July, 1830; both are dead. They lived affectionately together, so far as known, until November, 1829, when he left her, and they have never since lived together. Some misunderstanding had taken place between the defendant and his father-in-law after he left, which resulted in the old gentleman’s-refusing him leave to live about the house, although he always expressed a willingness that his daughter should live with her husband,, if she chose. Mrs. Friend removed with her father to Logan county,, and has always lived at home; never having went to housekeeping,, and her husband never having in fact made any provision for that purpose, of any consequence. Some time after the removal to Logan, the husband came up, and has since been working about,, rather given to intemperance. He has talked a great deal about getting his wife to live with him, and of his fear of personal injury from his father-in-law. Many messages have been sent to the wife by different neighbors to have her live with him, and some two or three times he has called for her, with a posse of neighbors. Once she met him by agreement at a neighbor’s — the family went to bed, *and left them in a room together, having two beds in it, [640 observing that they might sleep together or separately. Shortly after he rose to go — -she asked him if he could not stay all night, he declined and left her. He had, however, during the whole time since he came to Logan, apparently used many efforts to induce her to live with him, and had engaged a house for that purpose, in case she would do so — but somehow the parties, though her father told her she was at liberty to go, though they should not live together in his house, never got together. There was considerable diplomacy in the movements of the parties. The defendant had sued his father-in-law for enticing away and harboring his wife,, and in another suit, for his own and his wife’s wages, while they lived in his family.
   WRIGHT, J.

The case before us is one of very singular features, and it is difficult to arrive at the real truth of it. These parties have had no quarrel — for aught that appears, they lived harmoniously together. He left her at her father’s on pretence of business; and on his return, after a couple of months, was desirous of living with her, but her parents prohibited him thenceforth from living with them, since which there has been much of diplomacy and insincerity. There is in the affair as detailed so much mystery, that we cannot pronounce what the true state of the case is. On Ms part, there are circumstances since his removal to this country, to excite suspicion that his efforts, apparently made to induce her return to Mm, were mere pretence to open the way fordamages in the suit against her father. On her part the evidence leaves it doubtful, if her expression of willingness to live with him were not controlled by family influence, and clogged with conditions intended to defeat the end. We are not satisfied that all has been open and fair, either between the parties, or by the parents of the complainant. The defendant has been more or less dissipated, it is true, and has acted foolishly enough. But what is disclosed to prevent man and wife, really loving each other, from getting together? We cannot see. There is something in the case inexplicable. Whether the truth lie in his wilful absence, and the desire of colorable circumstances to increase his damages in the suits at law, or in the will of the wife, aided or unaided by her parents, we cannot tell. We are not perfectly satisfied with the conduct of either. If the parents interfere to prevent an interview, we will take measures to secure the parties against that influence, and to bring them together if they desire it themselves. As the case stands, we are not satisfied of the defendant’s wilful absence; and will dismiss the bill, unless a continuance is preferred. — Continued.  