
    Ex Parte O'BRIEN.
    Crim. No. 255;
    March 5, 1897.
    48 Pac. 71.
    Divorce—Subsequent Order for Alimony.—Where, on rendering a decree of divorce, the question of alimony is reserved, a subsequent order awarding alimony is not void.
    Application by one O’Brien for a discharge on habeas corpus.
    Denied.
    Beatty & Beatty for petitioner; Henley, Bigelow & Costello for respondent.
   BEATTY, C. J.

In this proceeding the order of the superior court amending the original decree in the case of O’Brien v. O’Brien is conclusive upon me, and the decree as amended shows that the question of alimony was reserved. This being so, the subsequent order or supplemental decree awarding alimony is not void, and the court did not exceed its jurisdiction in imprisoning the petitioner for his refusal to pay the sums decreed to be paid. The prisoner is remanded.  