Case Name: ABELL v. ABELL
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1914-06-08
Citations: 135 La. 648
Docket Number: No. 20417
Parties: ABELL v. ABELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 648–650

Head Matter:
(65 South. 873)
No. 20417.
ABELL v. ABELL.
(June 8, 1914.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1914.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Husband and Wife (§ 285%*) — Action fob Separation — Public Defamation.
A vague and indefinite remark of the wife as to the conduct of the husband will not support a charge of public defamation.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 1074; Dec. Dig. § 285%.*]
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Richland; John R. McIntosh, Judge. '
Action by Hazel Vivian Abell against Archie A. Abell for separation from bed and board, and defendant, reconvening, prays for like relief. Judgment of nonsuit against both parties, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ellis & Ellis, of Amite City, for appellant. E. !P. Norman, of Rayville, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
Plaintiff sued for a separation from bed and board on the ground of habitual intemperance on the part of the defendant husband, of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable.
Defendant, for answer, after admitting the fact of marriage, specially denied all other allegations of the petition; and, reconvening, prayed for a decree of separation from bed and board on the ground that the plaintiff had publicly defamed him, and had been guilty of Such outrages that it was not reasonably possible for them to live together any longer.
The case was tried, and there was judgment of nonsuit against both parties. The defendant has appealed.
The evidence in behalf of the defendant's reconventional demand consists of the testimony of a single witness, a roommate of the defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff charged both of them "with having been to negro town that night," which was not a fact.
We agree with our learned brother below that such evidence is too vague and uncertain to justify a decree of separation from bed and board.
Judgment affirmed.