Case ID: wash_56/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 8338.
    Department Two.
    December 24, 1909.]
    Mary Smith, Respondent, v. W. L. Smith, Appellant.
      
    
    Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. Error in the admission of evidence in a divorce case'is harmless, where the findings are sustained by competent evidence.
    Costs — On Appeal — Divorce—Attorney’s Pees. Upon affirming a decree of divorce in favor of a wife, the attorney’s fees on appeal will be confined to the statutory costs.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Huneke, J., entered May 26, 1909, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for a divorce.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. M. Nevims and Merritt, Oswald & Merritt, for appellant.
    
      Robertson, Miller & Rosenhaupt, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 105 Pac. 1030.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree in a divorce proceeding. The case involves, with one exception, pure questions of fact. The statement of facts consists of between six and seven hundred pages of portrayal of domestic infelicity, which it would be neither edifying nor instructive to set forth in detail, or at all. But an examination of all the testimony in the case convinces us that the judgment of the court was justified in respect to all of the contested questions, viz., the granting of the decree, the disposition of the children, and the division of the property. In relation to the exception above mentioned, the appellant assigns as error the action of the court in refusing to sustain objections to •certain testimony which, it is claimed, was not justifiable under the issues raised by the pleadings.

But in addition to the fact that the record discloses that the alleged obnoxious testimony was not objected to until the testimony was substantially received, this case is tried here de novo, and excluding all illegal testimony, we think there is quite sufficient left to sustain the judgment. It will therefore be affirmed. The motion of appellant for costs for attorney’s fees in this court, over and above the statutory fees, will be denied.