
    IDA EDITH RUBENSTEIN, Respondent, v. SOL. RUBENSTEIN, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals.
    Argued and Submitted April 6, 1911.
    Opinion Filed May 2, 1911.
    MAINTENANCE: Finding of Trial Court Approved. In an action for maintenance, held, that the judgment of =the trial court, awarding the payment of a monthly sum to the wife, was proper.
    Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Lyon £ Sioarts and Dwight D. Gurrie for appellant.
    The court should have granted Sol Rubenstein a decree of divorce, and should have denied Mrs. Rubenstein relief in the maintenance suit. In divorce and maintenance suits it is the duty of the appellate court'to weigh and consider all the evidence and direct such change in the judgment as to it seems proper. It is not bound by the findings of the trial court. Strahorn v. Strahorn, 82 Mo. App. 580; Jennings v. Jennings, 85 Mo. App. 290; McCann v. McCann, 91 Mo. App. 1; Schumann v. Schumann, 93 Mo. App. 99.
    
      George W. Lublce, Geo. W. Lublce, Jr., and Stern £ Eaberman for respondent.
    Where the testimony is conflicting the court will defer to the judgment of the trial court which had the witnesses before it. Million v. Million, 106 Mo. App. 680; Coe v. Coe, 98 Mo. App. 472; Endsley v. Endsley, 89 Mo. App. 596; King v. King, 42 Mo. App. 454; Stevenson v. Stevenson, 29 Mo. 95.
   REYNOLDS, P. J.

— This is an action instituted March 18,1909, by plaintiff, the wife, against defendant, her husband, for the recovery of |1500 alleged to have been loaned by her to him and for maintenance, the parties having separated. Before final submission the $1500 were paid to plaintiff by defendant and that is out of the case. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay her a monthly sum. This action was tried along with one by the husband against the wife, in which the husband sought a divorce from his wife. In that action the court found for defendant, dismissing it, and in this action, as above stated, found in favor of the wife. From this judgment plaintiff has duly appealed.

Reading all the testimony as presented by the abstract and giving it due consideration, we find no error in the action of the trial court. The court found there was no legal cause for the separation. The amount awarded is within the ability and means of this defendant. This judgment awarding maintenance to the wife, respondent here, is affirmed.

Wortoni and Omifield, JJ., concur.  