¶1delivering the opinion of the Court:
¶2This case is controlled by Naudain v. Naudain, 1 Boyce 248, 75 A. 609. It differs from Ross v. Ross, 4 W. W. Harr. (34 Del.) 7, 130 A. 677, in that there is nothing to indicate that the facts upon which the charge is based were personally known to the petitioner, while in that case the *60charge was extreme cruelty by the respondent toward the petitioner.
¶3From certain statements of the Court in Ross v. Ross, it is contended that in an affidavit based on information and belief the sources of the information upon which it is based should be set out; but such statements were . not necessary to the decision of that case and appear to be inconsistent with the decision of the Court in the earlier case of Naudain v. Naudain, 1 Boyce 248, 75 A. 609, supra.
¶4Perhaps we might also add that the Naudain Case was not called to the attention of the Court in the Ross Case.
¶5For the reasons above given, the defendant’s motion is refused.