Case Name: S. W. ALEXANDER v. R. W. ALEXANDER
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1914-02-18
Citations: 165 N.C. 45
Docket Number: 
Parties: S. W. ALEXANDER v. R. W. ALEXANDER.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 165
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
S. W. ALEXANDER v. R. W. ALEXANDER.
(Filed 18 February, 1914.)
Divorce a Mensa — Trials—Evidence—Nonsuit.
The evidence in this, action for divorce a mensa is held insufficient, and a motion of nonsuit was properly allowed. Martin v. Martin, 130 N. C., 28, and other cases cited by the Court.
Appeal by plaintiff from Connor, J., at October Term, 1913, of Edgecombe.
Civil action for divorce a mensa et thoro. At the close of the evidence, the - defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to be submitted to the jury. The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff appealed.
James M. Norfleet and H. A. Gilliam for plaintiff.
J ames R. Gasleill and T. T. Thorne for defendant.

Opinion:
EbowN, J.
. The plaintiff asks a decree of divofce from béd and board upon the ground of abandonment, coupled with failure to support her, and also that the defendant has inflicted such indignities upon.her as makes her life intolerable. No alimony is asked.
The -court sustained the motion to nonsuit and dismissed, the action, but awarded the custody of the children, under certain conditions, to the plaintiff.
We have examined the evidence in this record with great care, and find that it discloses á most unfortunate and lamentable condition of affairs, but it falls far short of that character which entitles the plaintiff to a divorce a mensa, assuming, that her version of the facts is correct.
The law will not sanction and authorize by its decrees the separation of husband and wife except for legal cause as prescribed in the statute and settled by numerous decisions of this Court. Martin v. Martin, 130 N. C., 28; O connor v. O connor, 109 N. C., 139; Jackson v. Jackson, 105 N. C., 433; White v. White, 84 N. C., 340; Joyner v. Joyner, 59 N. C., 322; McQueen v. McQueen, 82 N. C., 472.
The evidence in this case does not at all meet the requirements of the law as laid down in those cases.
We deem it unnecessary to discuss it. It would be painful to the parties chiefly interested, and their children, and of but little value as a precedent.
Affirmed.