
    (117 So. 32)
    HILL v. HILL.
    (1 Div. 488.)
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 10, 1928.
    Divorce &wkey;>l 29(9) — Circumstances proving adultery as ground for divorce must be sufficient to justify conclusion of reasonable man that act was committed.
    Although adultery as ground for divorce need not necessarily be directly proven, and can be established by circumstantial evidence, circumstances proved must be such as would lead guarded discretion of just and reasonable man to conclusion that tbe act had been committed.
    <§s»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Bemey, Judge.
    Bill in equity by Edward Hill against Bessie Hill, seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. From a decree dismissing tbe bill, complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    George A. Sossaman, of Mobile, for appellant.
    Where all tbe testimony is by deposition, there is no presumption in favor of tbe finding of tbe trial court. Code 1923, § 10276; Heflin v. Heflin, 216 Ala. 519, 113 So. 535. Tbe uncorroborated, but uncontradicted, testimony of tbe complainant, if believed, is sufficient to justify the granting of a divorce. Apperson v. Apperson, ante, p. 157, 115 So. 229. It is not necessary that tbe act of adultery be proven by direct testimony as to tbe act, but it is sufficient that tbe circumstances proved are such as would lead tbe guarded discretion of a just and reasonable man to tbe conclusion that tbe act bad been committed. Morrison v. Morrison, 95 Ala. 309, 10 So. 648.
    Faster K. Hale, Jr., of Mobile, for appellee.
    Brief did not reach tbe Reporter.
   ANDERSON, C. J.

While a charge of this character need not necessarily be directly proven and can be established by circumstantial evidence, tbe ’ circumstances proved “ ‘must be such as would lead the' guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to tbe conclusion’ that ttm act has been committed.” Morrison v. Morrison, 95 Ala. 309, 10 So. 648. Tbe evidence in this case, consisting only of tbe complainant’s deposition, has been read and considered by tbe court in consulta•tion, and we do not think that it is so certain and specific as to warrant us in holding that the respondent is guilty of the act charged, •and the trial court did not err in denying the complainant relief.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., concur.  