Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blackman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Caleb K. Dodge vs. Mary Dodge.
    A petition for a further allowance, under $ 3234, O. L., should show a proper expenditure of previous allowances, and the purposes and sums for which a further allowance is necessary to be made.
    Where a defendant, in a proceeding instituted to procure a divorce, files her petition stating that she “is pregnant with child begotten by the complainant,” and praying for an order that the complainant testifv orally in Court; held> that such statement is not sufficient to warrant the Court, under Ch. Rule 99, in ordering the eomplainan t to testify orally in open Court as to access to the defendant.
    Motion submitted Dec. 17, 1869,
    in the Circuit Court for the County of Berrien, in Chancery.
    In this case, the defendant made application to the Court, by petition, praying for a further allowance, to enable her to defend the suit, and for an order that the complainant testify orally in Court. The hill in this case, charged the wife with practicing extreme cruelty towards her husband. It was after-wards so amended as to charge adultery. The answer denied both charges, and stated that both parties occupied the same house with seperate bed-rooms, and that the complainant since the filing of his bill was in the habit of having intercourse with her.
    
      The case had been submitted to the late Judge Bacon, on pleadings and proofs, but had not been decided by him.
    The petition stated that allowances, to the amount of fifty-five dollars, had been paid by complainant; of which sum, the petitioner had been informed, twenty-eight dollars had been expended, but did not state bow that sum or the balance had been used. It further stated, that she was pregnant with child, begotten by the complainant, about June, 1869.
    The defendant, in a counter affidavit, denied this, and all intercourse with her. The fact that they lived in the same house, and professed to occupy seperate bed-rooms, was undisputed; but the complainant claimed he could not get the defendant to leave.
    
      E. Bacon, for Complainant.
    
      C. M. Aboard, for Defendant.
   By the Court,

Blackman, J.

The petition upon which the Court is called to act, shows that the defendant has had an allowance of fifty-five dollars. Before an order for additional means could properly be made, the petitioner should show a proper expenditure of the previous allowance, and the purpose and sums for which further allowance is necessary to be made. This, the petition does not show.

The Court cannot, under Ch. Rule 99, upon the facts stated in this petition, order the complainant to testify orally, in open Court, as to his intercourse with the defendant.

The application must be denied.