Younger v. Younger

GRAY, J.,

pro

tem.

Appeals by the husband in an action of divorce for desertion, from that part of the interlocutory decree awarding the wife the sum of $35 a week as permanent alimony and $100 as attorney’s fees, and also from an order granting her, during the pendency of the first appeal, the sum of $25 a week alimony and additional attorney’s fee for such appeal.

As to the appeal from the order, the bill of exceptions merely sets forth the wife’s affidavit, the order to show cause and the order of the court. The order recites that, on the hearing, testimony both oral and documentary was introduced and considered, but none of such testimony is presented in the bill of exceptions. In the absence of an affirmative showing of an abuse of discretion, the order of the trial court cannot be disturbed.

(Webster

v.

Webster,

43 Cal. App. 772 [185 Pac. 863];

Duffey

v.

Duffey,

79 Cal. App. 734 [251 Pac. 218].) Since the opening brief (the only one on behalf of the appellant) merely recites that he appealed from the order, without any attempt to point out error, the appeal from the order will be regarded as abandoned. (2 Cal. Jur. 727.) Likewise, no error is pointed out with reference to the first allowance of attorney’s fees and this matter will not be reviewed.

Medical bills incurred by the wife prior to the trial, but then due and unpaid, were properly admitted as a circumstance, which section 139 of the Civil Code required the court to consider.

(Lamborn

v.

Lamborn,

80 Cal. App. 494 [251 Pac. 943].) They had a bearing upon financial ability, necessities and health of the respondent.

Evidence of the wife’s support of an adult daughter who was sick and unable to work was properly admitted.

(Anderson

v.