
    (54 App. Div. 195.)
    ROGERS v. ROGERS.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    November 9, 1900.)
    Appeal—Objection not Raised Below.
    Where the affidavits used on a motion were not properly authenticated. In that they lacked evidence that the officer before whom they were verified was authorized to take them, hut the objection was not raised below, It cannot be urged on appeal.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Dora N. Rogers against Charles S. Rogers for divorce. From an order granting plaintiff alimony and counsel fees, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, RUMSEY, McLaughlin, and ingeaham, jj.
    C. C. Alden, for appellant.
    C. Caldwell, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It may he that the affidavits objected to were not properly authenticated, within the ruling of this court in Turtle v. Turtle, 31 App. Div. 49, 52 N. Y. Supp. 857. But that objection was not taken upon the hearing of the motion, and for that reason the defendant cannot avail himself of it here. The affidavits are sufficient to warrant the conclusion reached by the court below as to the right of the plaintiff to alimony and counsel fees, and the motion, therefore, was properly granted. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  