Condonation is not so strict a bar against the wife as the husband ; Armstrong v. Arm strong, 32 Miss. 279; Phillips v. Phillips, 1 Ill. App. 245 ; 1 Hag. Ec. 773.
The presumption of condonation from co habitation in cases of cruelty is not so strong as in cases of adultery ; 2 Bish. Mar.1 & Div. § 50 at seq. A divorce on the ground of cruelty will not be granted where the par ties lived together a long time after the al leged cruelty and before the action was brought, as the offence will be presumed to have been condoned ; O'Connor v. O'Connor, 109 N. C. 139, 13 S. E. 887 ; Hitchins v. Hitch ins, 140 Ill. $26, 29 N. E. 888 ; Nullmeyer v. Nullmeyer, 49 Ill. App. 573. But not in cas es where it is overlooked for a time, but its continuance makes it intolerable: Owens v. Owens, 96 Va. 191, 31 S. E. 72; Gauntt v.
Gauntt, 34 Pa. C. C. R. 100; Breedlove v. Breedlove, 27 Ind. App. 560, .61 N. E. 797.
Enduring cruelty for several years in the hope of better treatment will not prevent a reliance upon the original cruelty ; Creyts v. Creyts, 133 Mich. 4, 94 N. W. 383; Coch ran v. Cochran, 93 Minn. 284, 101 N. W. 179; Twyman v. Twyman, 27 Mo. 383.
Where a husband's infidelity was condon ed, a remedy because of such infidelity was revived by his subsequent cruelty to her; Moorhouse v. Moorhouse, 90 Ill. App. 401;
Fisher v. Fisher, 93 Md. 298, 48 Atl. 833; or by subsequent adultery ; 19 L. Q. It. 365; or by subsequent desertion; 29 id. 108.
Condonation of husband's cruelty is upon the explicit condition that he will thereafter treat her kindly. A breach of this condition revives the right of suit for the original misconduct ; Smith v. Smith, 167 Mass. 87, 45 N. E. 52; and it is not necessary that the subsequent misconduct shall be sufficient to warrant divorce without regard to previous cruelty if there is such. frequent unkindness as to warrant the belief that It will break out into acts of gross cruelty ; Jefferson v. Jefferson, 168 Mass. 456, 47 N. E. 123.
If condonation was based upon conditions which the husband failed to perform, it was ineffective; Ferguson v. Ferguson, 145 Mich. 290, 108 N. W. 682. It is always based upon the condition of proper conduct afterwards; a breach of a condition revives the original offence ; Owens v. Owens, 96 Va. 191, 31 S. E. 72; Mosher v. Mosher, 16 N. D. 269, 113 N. W. 99, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820, 125 Am. St. Rep. 654; [1905] P. 94.
There is no condonation in case of a con tinuing venereal disease; Hooe v. Hooe, 122 Ky. 590, 92 S. W. 317, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 729, 13 Ann. Cas. 214.