Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Iona V. Hassett, Appellee, v. Timothy F. Hassett, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 19,896.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward M. Mangan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 13, 1914.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Husband and wife, § 217
      
      —right to separate maintenance. Evidence held insufficient to show that the wife was without fault on her part so as to entitle her to separate maintenance, where it appeared she did many things which were unreasonable and which amounted to conduct on her part far short of that expected of a devoted and loving wife.
    2. Divorce, § 9
      
      —what does not constitute desertion. A separation by a wife from her husband largely at his instance and suggestion and occasioned by his mistreatment, held not to constitute desertion within the meaning of the divorce statute.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Iona V. Hassett against Timothy F. Hassett for separate maintenance charging that complainant, without her fault, was compelled to live separate and apart from defendant because of his unkind, cruel and inhuman conduct. The defendant filed an answer denying the allegations of the bill and subsequently filed a cross-bill for divorce on the ground of desertion. To the cross-bill complainant filed her answer stating that she was compelled to leave defendant because of his treatment and his failure to support her. The chancellor dismissed both the original bill and the cross-bill for want of equity. To reverse the order, defendant appeals. .
    Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for appellant.
    Percival Steele & Albert H. Meads, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.