
    Billy Ray ETHRIDGE v. Janice Ruth ETHRIDGE.
    No. 56041.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Feb. 12, 1986.
    Robert D. Jones, Martin & Jones, Meridian, for appellant.
    Robert W. Bailey, Sandusky, Bailey, For-tenberry & Stephenson, Meridian, for ap-pellee.
    Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J. and DAN M. LEE and ANDERSON, JJ.
   ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice,

for the Court:

Billy Ray Ethridge appeals from a judgment of the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County, Honorable Jerry Mason, presiding, granting a divorce to Janice Ruth Ethridge on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and awarding her custody of minor children, support and alimony.

Appellant contends first that the lower court was manifestly wrong in granting appellee a divorce.

Among other authorities, appellant cites Gallaspy v. Gallaspy, 459 So.2d 283 (Miss.1984); Wires v. Wires, 297 So.2d 900 (Miss.1974). In Gallaspy, this Court said:

If habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is to remain the seventh ground for divorce under the divorce statutes of Mississippi, then when a complaint is filed charging that ground for divorce, the proof must sustain it. ' Otherwise; the ground should be repealed by the legislature, but not by the judiciary. We recognize that courts have become liberal in the application of proof on the habitual cruel and inhuman treatment ground. However, by no means have they made a farce and mockery of the requirement to prove the ground.
* * * * * *
On the other hand, habitual ill-founded accusations, threats and malicious sarcasm, insults and verbal abuse niay cause such mental suffering as to destroy health and endanger the life of an innocent spouse. Bunkley & Morse, Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 3.14(3), at 122 (1957).

459 So.2d at 285-86.

We distinguish the cases relied upon by appellant from the case sub judice. We have carefully examined the record in this case and conclude that nothing would be gained by stating the facts leading toward and showing habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, some of which are sordid. The proof does indicate that appellant used physical violence upon appellee, as well as insults, abuse, and conduct which was an impairment and menace to her health and physical well-being. The chancellor was not manifestly wrong in granting appellee a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

. Appellant contends second that the lower court erred in granting appellee alimony. He cites no authority in support of such assignment and following Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842 (Miss.1979); Richardson v. Stokes, 254 Miss. 71, 180 So.2d 153 (1965); the assignment will not be considered. Likewise, obviously there is no merit in it.-

The motion for attorney’s fees filed with this Court is sustained and fees for representing the appellee here are fixed in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500).

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SUSTAINED.

PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, P.J. and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.  