
    DICKINSON v. DICKINSON et al.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted October 6, 1925.
    Decided November 2, 1925.)
    No. 4193.
    Divorce ©=» 184 (10) — Finding on eonilioiina evidence that plaintiff was entitled to divorce not disturbed.
    Where plaintiff’s evidence was circumstantial, and confined to testimony of private detectives and their assistants, and was contradicted by defendant, alleged co-respondent, and disinterested witnesses, finding of trial court that plaintiff was not entitled to divorce would not be disturbed.
    Appeal from Supreme Court of District of Columbia.
    Action for divorce by Emily Given Dickinson against Eldred Pendleton Dickinson and Theresa C. John, co-respondent. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. H. Jackson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, dismissing appellant's petition for an. absolute divorce.

The evidence for the appellant, introduced in open court, was circumstantial in character and confined to the testimony of private detectives and their assistants. The implications raised by this testimony were not only denied by the appellee and the alleged co-respondent, but the testimony of disinterested witnesses tended to contradict that of the witnesses for appellant. The court below heard these witnesses, and hence was in a far better position to decide the issues óf fact involved than are we. Following our practice in similar cases, we affirm ihe decree, with costs. See McKitrick v. McKitrick, 261 F. 451, 49 App. D. C. 109; Topham v. Topham, 269 F. 1013, 50 App. D. C. 229; Allen v. Allen, 285 F. 962, 52 App. D. C. 228.

Affirmed.  