
    Argued April 9,
    affirmed May 26,
    rehearing denied July 7, 1914.
    SMITH v. SMITH.
    (141 Pac. 1199.)
    From Washington: Jambs IT. Campbell, Judge.
    Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin.
    This is an action by Vienna A. Smith against Ambrose D. Smith for divorce. Defendant in his answer, by way of counterclaim, also seeks a divorce.
    The plaintiff and defendant were married in December, 1898. Two months after their marriage defendant took plaintiff to a logging camp up the Tualatin River, where she cooked for from 10 to 15 men until 1911, and without assistance until 1903, doing all the washing, and living in a scow and in a cabin in the timber. He was a stockholder in a sawmill at Tualatin, handling the logging part of the business, and at no time, until 1911, did he provide a suitable dwelling in which to live, to plaintiff’s great humiliation. She complains that he has failed to treat her as a wife should be treated, has shown no affection for her, used profane language to and in the presence of plaintiff, and has shown by his conduct that he married her to secure a cook and servant, and not a life companion; that in June, 1912, he called plaintiff up in the night and became very angry, used vile language to her, called her unspeakable names, accused her of infidelity, and, saying he would leave her for good, left the house, causing her great mental anguish and her health to be impaired; and that all of his said actions were for the purpose of rendering her life burdensome. Defendant’s stock in the lumber company is of the approximate value of $25,000. By his counterclaim lie accuses plaintiff of cruel and inhuman treatment, rendering his life burdensome, in that she has had improper relations with Albert Zimmerman and committed other acts of cruelty toward him, for which he asks a divorce. The trial court made findings sustaining the allegations of the complaint, and rendered a decree granting plaintiff a divorce and as permanent alimony in gross the sum of $5,000, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Sweek é Shelton and Messrs. Bagley é Hare, with an oral argument by Mr. George R. Bagley.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Angelí & Fisher, with an oral argument by Mr. H. D. Angelí.
    
   Mr. Justice Eakin

delivered the opinion of the court.

We have read with care the evidence in the case, as well as the findings of the court, and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel; and, as no question of law is involved, we conclude that the findings of the Circuit Court are fully sustained by the evidence, and that no good purpose can be accomplished by reviewing it. The decree is affirmed.

Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.  