delivered the opinion of the court.
Hunt v. Hunt, 211 Ill. App. 410 (1918)
June 10, 1918
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 24,042
211 Ill. App. 410
Mattie S. Hunt, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunt, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 24,042.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Kersten, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Opinion filed June 10, 1918.
Statement of the Case.
Bill for divorce by Mattie S. Hunt, complainant, against Thomas M. Hunt, defendant. From a decree for complainant, defendant brings error.
Adler, Lederer & Beck, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
*411Abstract of the Decision.
1. Divobce, § 66 * — what necessary to render defendant in default after amendment of hill. Where complainant’s original bill was for separate maintenance and thereafter an amended bill was filed seeking a divorce, proper practice requires a rule upon defendant to plead to the amended bill before he could be in default.
2. Divobce, § 12* — when cruelty of husband not shown. On a bill for divorce on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty, testimony by complainant that ever since their marriage defendant had been guilty of excessive sexual intercourse is insufficient to support the charge of cruelty, the testimony of a doctor having been to the effect that he could not say that it affected complainant’s health.
3. Divobce, § 16* — what constitutes condonation. The offense of extreme and repeated cruelty asserted as ground for divorce, if shown by complainant’s testimony that defendant was guilty of excessive sexual intercourse ever since their marriage, is condoned where the proof shows that the parties lived together for 16 years.