Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0354-01.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

JABEZ BRAINARD v. LIVIA BRAINARD.
    Divorce — hearsay—admissions of the parties.
    . Hearsay evidence is not sufficient in divorce.
    The statute prohibits the decreeing a divorce on the declarations or admissions of the parties.
    Divorce. Cause, three years wilful absence.
    The parties were married in 1812. She left in 1823, with his consent and went without him to Connecticut, to stay there awhile. He was to go for her. He was absent some time the next season and said he went for her. He was absent again five years, and it was the general opinion he went to work out and bring her back. She said to a witness, who saw her in Connecticut three years ago, that she did not care about her husband, nor intend to live with him.
   By the Court.

There is no evidence here but hearsay and the declarations of the parties, which the law expressly prohibits us from considering. As to the absence, it appears she left with her husband’s consent.