Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0224-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CATHARINE REED v. JAMES W. REED.
    Divorce — wilful absence — leaving with intent to return.
    There must be full three years wilful absence to allow a divorce for that cause.
    Where the hustfand leaves his wife intending to return, but afterwards determines to continue away, he will be considered wilfully absent, from the time he resolved not to return.
    Divorce. Cause, wilful absence for three years. It appeared in evidence that the parties were married in 1822, and had one child. Some difficulty arose between them because he went to bed to the hired girl; but that was made up and they lived together again. In 
      September, 1829, he went into Kentucky with a load of clocks for sale. In the winter he wrote home that he was selling clocks. After this he was pursued by one who had gone his security, overtaken, and his property taken from him. After that his household furniture, &c. was sold for his debts, and he has not been heard of since. She sustains a good character.
   By the Court.

There must be three years wilful absence to entitle the complainant to a divorce for that cause. This bill was filed the 8th December, 1832. In the winter of 1829, ’30, the defendant left home to peddle clocks, and was in Kentucky but a short distance from his family, and wrote home. He seemed then to contemplate a return. If it was after he was stripped of his property that he determined not to return, then the time of his wilful absence would begin to run at that date, and three years from that time had not transpired when this bill was filed.

The bill is dismissed without prejudice.