The case seems to have been tried on the theory that she was responsible for her acts until the time she was committed to the asylum and not that she was relieved from responsibility from the time she became insane. This court can not assent to that view. The extreme cruelty, which is a ground for divorce, means voluntary or intentional extreme cruelty and can not be committed by a lunatic who does not understand the nature of her acts. Divorce may,' it is true, be granted as against an insane person, but only for acts committed while sane. Insanity is not a ground for divorce. The ten" causes for which divorce may be granted under the Ohio statute are as explicit as the Ten Commandments and can be changed by the legislature only.

The great weight of the evidence shows that the acts committed by her, of which complaint is made, were committed while she was insane and did not understand what she was doing, and they do not, therefore, constitute a cause for which divorce may be granted.

The judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.