
    11638
    LEYSATH v. LEYSATH
    (125 S. E., 737)
    
    Husband and Wife — Allowance of Temporary Alimony and Suit Money, Pending Determination of Case, Involving Wife’s Right to Leave Husband Because of Mistreatment, on its Merits, Held Proper. — In temporary alimony case in which affidavits submitted by wife tended to prove that she was justified in leaving husband because of his attentions to and intimacy with other woman, it was proper to allow wife temporary alimony and suit money pending a determination of the case on its merits, as against husband’s contention that he had provided wife with comfortable home.
    Before SeasE, J., Orangeburg, October, 1923.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Beita Beysath against James E. Eeysath. From decree allowing plaintiff temporary alimony and suit money and enjoining defendant from disposing of his property until termination of action, the defendant appeals.
    The plaintiff left defendant, claiming that defendant, because of his neglect of her and his attentions to and intimacy with another woman, had rendered further cohabitation with defendant intolerable. The affidavits of plaintiff and her father showed that defendant absented himself from his home for days at a time, and during such time stayed 'with such other woman, and that letter written by defendant to such other woman in terms of endearment stated that it was his intention to secure a divorce from plaintiff and to marry her. The affidavits also showed that defendant’s manner towards plaintiff was distant and cold.
    Defendant claimed that he had provided plaintiff with a comfortable home, and that plaintiff, having left such home without cause or excuse, was not entitled to alimony, and introduced a number of affidavits tending to prove that he had provided plaintiff with a comfortable home.
    
      Messrs. B. B. Friday and Brantley & Zeigler, for appellant,
    cite: Where wife leaves the home voluntarily the burden is upon her to show by preponderance of the evi
      
      dence, such violence or personal indignity: 100 S. C., 298; 90 S. C., 245. Where husband is willing to take the wife back, no alimony should be granted: 115 S. C., 326. Right of husband to choose abode: 60 S. C., 426. Financial condition of husband: 10 Rich. Eq., 416. Award will be reversed where plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing: 113 S. C., 128; 100 S. C., 299; 91 S. C., 245.
    
      Messrs. Wolfe & Berry, George D. Shore, Jr., and M. W. Seabrook, for respondent,
    cite: Evidence justifies decree: 115 S. C., 326; 111 S. E., 792; 122 S. E., 500; 107 S. C., 99. Temporary alimony and suit money within discretion of Judge: 123 S. E., 206; 115 S. C., 217.
    December 31, 1924.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was an action brought September 10, 1923, by Leita Eeysath for alimony in the sum of $200.00 per month, and suit money in the sum of $300.00. The case was heard by his Honor, T. S. Sease, presiding Judge, at the October, 1923, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg County upon the verified petition and affidavits of the plaintiff and affidavits submitted by the defendant, who made his decree allowing $100.00 per month temporary alimony and $200.00 suit money, and enjoined the defendant, appellant, from disposing of any of his property until the termination of the action.”

The exceptions, four in number, challenge the correctness of Judge Sease’s finding and holding.

As this is a temporary alimony case, until the case is tried on its merits, we overrule all the exceptions and affirm the decree of Judge Sease, under Nicholson v. Nicholson, 115 S. C., 326; 105 S. E., 700. Wise v. Wise, 119 S. C., 10; 111 S. E., 792. Cleveland v. Cleveland (S. C.), 122 S. E., 500. Molloy v. Molloy, 107 S. C., 99; 91 S. E., 971. Sadler v. Sadler, 115 S. C., 217; 105 S. E., 285. O’Neal v. O’Neal (S. C.), 123 S. E., 206.

Judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Fraser, Cothran and Marion concur.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.  