delivered the opinion of the court.
*132Abstract of the Decision.
Husband and wife, § 264 * —when evidence insufficient to warrant decree for separate maintenance. Evidence examined and held insufficient to warrant a decree for separate maintenance.
Schlottke v. Schlottke, 192 Ill. App. 130 (1915)
March 23, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,811
192 Ill. App. 130
Emma L. Schlottke, Appellant, v. Frederick K. Schlottke, Appellee.
Gen. No. 19,811.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavanaqh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 23, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Bill for separate maintenance filed by Emma L. Schlottke, complainant, against Frederick K. Schlottke, defendant.
The evidence shows that complainant and defendant, who had .been married and living together more than twenty-six years, were living in Indiana, together with their daughter and son-in-law. The defendant and his son-in-law were jointly operating a farm. A controversy arose, which provoked and excited the defendant, and in which the son-in-law struck the defendant in the face, knocking him down. Defendant’s glasses were knocked off his nose by the *131blow and broken and the pieces of glass cut his face to some extent. The daughter made some unpleasant remarks to him, and thereupon the father slapped her in the face with the back of his hand. The son-in-law then gave defendant a severe beating, whereupon the defendant packed up his clothing and asked his wife to come to Chicago, telling her that it was a shame for a man to be beaten by his son-in-law. The complainant took the part of the son-in-law and daughter and in response to uncomplimentary remarks by defendant called the defendant disagreeable names and refused to go with him to Chicago. Two weeks later, after he had requested her to go to Chicago with him, without writing him or making any demand on him for support and maintenance, filed her bill in this cause.
In his answer the defendant offered to take his wife back and support her. The defendant came to Chicago and secured employment and remained in Chicago.
The complainant was always intrusted by the defendant with the family purse, and, as far as the record shows, had been treated up to the time of the occurrence above mentioned with great consideration by the defendant, and there had been no quarrel or controversy between them. At the hearing the defendant offered to receive the complainant as his wife, to live with her, provide for her and give her a home as soon as he could remove or get rid of one of his tenants so that they could occupy one of the flats which they owned. The complainant refused, however, to have anything to do with defendant, and insisted upon living apart from him.
From a decree denying the relief sought, complainant appeals.
John Stelk, for appellant.
William T. Payne, for appellee.