
    Broody v. Broody, Appellant.
    
      Divorce — Allowance of counsel fee — Discretion of court.
    
    The amount of the allowance of a counsel fee to a wife in divorce proceedings is largely within the discretion of the lower court, and in the absence of abuse of discretion, the action of the lower court will not be reversed by the appellate court.
    Argued Oct. 22, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 1, March T., 1918, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1916, No. 799, allowing counsel fee in case of Laura P. Broody v. Joseph M. Broody.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Libel in divorce. Before Garman, J.
    Prom the record it appeared that on January 8,1917, the court entered an order directing that the respondent pay to Q. A. Gates, Esq., $150 counsel fee.
    
      
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      R. B. Alexander, with him John McGahren, for appellant,
    cited: Naylor v. Naylor, 59 Pa. Superior Ct. 547; Waldron v. Waldron, 55 Pa. 231; Fernald v. Fernald, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 629; Sutton v. Sutton, 16 Luz. Leg. Reg. 525; Smith v. Smith, 24 Pa. Dist. Rep. 527.
    No printed brief for appellee.
    March 2, 1918:
   Per Curiam,

The order from which this appeal is taken, was very largely in the discretion- of the court, and, in the light of the facts presented by the record, we find no abuse of that discretion. We affirm the order.  