
    Kinsman v. Kinsman.
    No. 5194.
    June 18, 1926.
    Libel for divorce. Before Judge Persons. Butts superior court. December 5, 1925.
    Suit for divorce was brought by the husband against his wife. The allegations of the petition upon which the right to this relief is based are that on July 8, 1908, the defendant told petitioner that “she no longer cared for him, and that he was no more to her than any other man, and for him to move out of her house;” that petitioner had endeavored to persuade her to retract this command, and to effect a reconciliation with his wife, without avail, and that she continued in her refusal to live with him. The answer of the defendant charged the petitioner with having wasted property which she owned and controlled as guardian for her three minor children; that he was disagreeable, stubborn, and of a contentious disposition and high temper, and soon after their marriage and without cause began to complain of and criticize actions of the defendant and her children, and would often become violently angry and abusive of herself and her children, to such an extent as to continuously cause her great mental pain and anguish, finally wrecking her health and causing her to become an invalid; that the petitioner had, on divers occasions subsequent to their marriage, committed adultery, and that upon learning of the same the defendant had immediately separated from him. The defendant prayed that she be granted a total divorce, and that reasonable provision be made for permanent alimony. The jury found that sufficient proofs had been submitted to authorize a total divorce between the parties, found that each of the parties might marry again, and awarded to Mrs. Kinsman $1000 in cash as permanent alimony. The error assigned is that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial, filed by petitioner. .
    
      G. L. Redman and J. T. Moore, for plaintiff,
    TP. E, WatJcms and Joel B. Mallet, for defendant.
   Gilbert, J.

The evidence supports the verdict. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial complained that the court erred in charging the jury as shown by four excerpts from the charge. None of these grounds show error, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  