| Mich. | Oct 11, 1889
Complainant filed his bill and obtained a decree of divorce for desertion. Defendant left him in 1876, and since that time has lived apart .from him on her own account. The only excuse or reason set up now, why her conduct did not amount to desertion, is that she was compelled to leave him by his cruelty, and failure to support her properly.
He is now over 70, and she is approaching 60. They were married more than 30 years ago, and lived together about 22 years. They had one daughter, who died shortly before their separation, when approaching womanhood. After her death defendant left complainant, and, although she claims she did not mean in the first place to make her departure permanent, she finally determined to do so. There is no evidence of any outbreak or quarrel. There is some variance upon arrangements in regard to her receipt of personal property, and how and why it was given her. It is pretty certain she got on some terms such furniture as she wanted, and that the household was permanently broken up.
It is not profitable to spread out in detail all the facts on which testimony agrees or differs. The circuit judge, who had good opportunities of seeing and hearing the witnesses, does not seem to have had any difficulty in determining that defendant deserted her husband, and was in fault for doing so.' We think he was right in his conclusions. It seems probable that after the daughter died the defendant did not care to live any longer with her husband, and that they were not very warmly attached to each other. She tells some large stories of his closeness and parsimony, which are
We think the decree below was fully warranted, and should be affirmed.