
    PAULINE HEYMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HARRY HEYMAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued December 20, 1948
    Decided January 24, 1949.
    Before Judges McGeehan, Donges and Colie.
    
      Mr. E. Gustave Greenwald argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant.
    
      Mr. Charles Handler argued the cause for defendant-respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J. A. D.

Plaintiff brought suit for separate maintenance and defendant counterclaimed for divorce upon the ground of desertion. After hearing a .judgment was entered dismissing the suit for -separate maintenance and granting the divorce. The plaintiff appeals.

The parties were married in 1917 and lived together until the latter part of 1944 when a controversy arose respecting financial matters which engendered ill feeling upon the part of the wife. It became -so intense that plaintiff refused to permit the defendant to sleep in the same room and thereafter he -slept in another room. This is -corroborated by the fact that thereafter a daughter slept in the same.bed with her mother. Without going into details, it suffices to say that the evidence supports the defendant’s efforts to effect a reconciliation. Essentially the question is one of fact and to are clearly of the opinion that the plaintiff, enraged over the financial situation, -vented her spleen by a denial of -cohabitation. We concur in the finding of the court below that the defendant had established a -cause of action for desertion and that the maintenance action was properly di-smi-ssed since the plaintiff failed to show -that -the defendant separated from her and refused to maintain -and provide for her without justifiable cause.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.  