
    Sarah Sowder vs. Emanuel Sowder.
    1. Practice. In the ¡Supreme Court. Divorce and alimony. Judicial discretion. Act of 1835, ch. 26, g $ -10, 22. The Supreme Court;will not interfere with the discretion vested in the Circuit Courts, in allowing alimony upon the granting of a divorce, where the bill discloses good ground therefor, unless there be a bill of exceptions, manifestly showing an improper exercise of such discretion.
    2. SAME. Same. Case in judgment. "Where the Circuit Court, in decreeing a divorce upon the application of the wife, gave a decree against the husband for a sum of money, as alimony to the wife; and said cause is brought by appeal into the Supreme Court, the record containing only the bill, answer and decree, without the evidence; and the decree showing that the Circuit Judge based his judgment upon the evidence adduced before him; it is held that the Supreme Court can do nothing more than affirm the decree.
    3. Cases Cited. Robinson vs. Robinson, 7 Humph., 440; Burdine vs. Shelton, 10 Yerg., 41.
    EROM CLAIBORNE,
    The complainant filed her bill for divorce and alimony, in the Circuit Court at Tazewell, on the 8th of October, 1858. She alleges adultery, and other maltreatment by the defendant, as the ground of divorce. The allegations were denied in the answer, and the cause was heard upon bill, answer and proof at the January Term, 1858, by Judge Welokee, when a decree was pronounced, granting a divorce from the bonds of matrimony ; and the sum of $250 00 out of. the husband’s estate, was decreed to the wife, to defray the expenses of this litigation. The complainant being dissatisfied with the latter part of the decree, brought- the cause by writ of error into this Court. The record contains nothing but the bill, answer and decrée, without any part of the evidence; but the decree purports to have been based upon testimony heard by the Court, “both oral and documentary,” and assumes that the several allegations of the bill were proven to the satisfaction of the Court.
    J. R. Cooke, for the complainant.
    Maynaed and Evans, for the defendant.
   A. Weight, ■ J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The decree of the Circuit' Judge in this cause, is affirmed.

The bill was filed for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, by the wife against the husband, and she obtained a decree and was restored to all the estate that came by her. The Circuit Judge, in view of all the facts before him, further decreed to complainant the sum of $250 00, to defray all her reasonable expenses in prosecuting the suit, and that defendant pay the costs.

The complainant alone, complains of this decree. The testimony upon which the decree was based, was derived from witnesses examined, orally, in open court, as is the law and practice under the act of 1835, ch. 26, § 22, (0. & N. Rev., 262.) No depositions appear to have been taken or filed, and no bill of exceptions made, placing of record, the proof before the Circuit Court, so that this Court could have before it the evidence upon which the Circuit Judge acted. We. have nothing but the pleadings and decree; the bill affording, if true, a proper cause for relief. The decree in its recitals of acts proved, shows that the Circuit Judge found the bill true.

In such a case, we cannot disturb the decree of the Circuit Court. We are forced to presume that, in all respects, he acted properly upon the facts.

The allowance to the wife, was a matter of legal discretion with the Circuit Judge, and we cannot revise or change what he has done, without the facts before him. Robinson vs. Robinson, 7 Humph., 440; act of 1835, ch. 265, § 10, (C. & N. Rev., 259.)

No reference to the clerk and master was asked by the complainants, as to the amount to be allowed her; and the decree is not erroneous under the rule, in Burdine vs. Shelton, 10 Yerg., 41. The facts which the Court considered as proved on the hearing, are sufficiently stated in the decree.

Decree affirmed.  