Case Name: Susannah Hancock versus Joseph Hancock
Court: New Hampshire Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1830-09
Citations: 5 N.H. 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susannah Hancock versus Joseph Hancock.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Susannah Hancock versus Joseph Hancock.
Where it was alleged, in a libel for divorce brought by a wife against the husband, that the husband, more than three years before the filing of the libel, willingly absented himself from the wife, and had ever afterwards neglected to make provision for her support, although in his power so to do — it wag held that no legal ground for a divorce was stated in the libel. To sustain a libel for a divorce on the ground of absence of the husband, without providing for the support of the wife, it must be averred, that he absented himself for the space of three years together.
This was a libel for a divorce. The libellant alleged that she was married to the said Joseph on the 4th January, 1822, “ and that the said Joseph, without any reasonable cause, and against the consent of the libellant, willingly absented himself from her more than three years ago, and had ever since neglected to make any provision for her support and maintenanaee, although he had it in his power to do it.”

Opinion:
By the Court.
The statute declares, that divorces from the bond of matrimony shall be decreed, " where the husband shall willingly absent himself from the wife for the space of three years together, without making suitable provision for her support and maintenance, where it is in bis power so to do."
The libel, in this case, is founded upon the above clause in the statute, but it is very clear, that the allegations of the libellant do not bring her case within the statute. To entitle a wife to a divorce under this clause in the statute» it must appear that the husband has absented himself for the space of three years, and that having ability, he has neglected to make suitable provision for her support during his absence. The defect in this libel is, that although it is alleged that the husband absented himself from the wife more than three years ago, it is not averred, that he has absented himself for the space of three years together. All that is alleged in this libel may be true, and yet the husband may have nevef absented himself from the libellant for the space of a week since his intermarriage with her. It is clear, that no legal cause for a divorce is stated by the libellant.