delivered the opinion of the court.
*639Abstract of the Decision.
Divorce, § 45 * —when evidence sufficient to support decree. Evidence in suit for divorce on ground of habitual drunkenness examined and Held to support a decree for complainant.
Adams v. Adams, 192 Ill. App. 638 (1915)
May 25, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,757
192 Ill. App. 638
Amie I. Adams, Defendant in Error, v. Edward S. Adams, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 20,757.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 25, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Bill for divorce by Amie I. Adams, complainant, against Edward S. Adams, defendant, on the ground of defendant’s habitual drunkenness for the space of more than three years.
For complainant there were two witnesses,—herself and her brother-in-law, Dr. Small. The complainant’s testimony was full and circumstantial, covering the last six years of the married life of the parties, and was fully supported by Dr. Small’s evidence, which further showed defendant’s physical and mental condition to be due to alcoholism. The evidence also supported the allegations of the bill as to the faithful performance by complainant of her duties and obligations as wife.
Defendant, who was personally served, did not enter his appearance, and a decree was rendered against'him by default, to reverse which decree he prosecutes this writ of error.
Haight, Brown & Haight, for plaintiff in error.
Rosenthal & Hamill, for defendant in error; Charles H. Hamill, of counsel.