Majority
p. 195Dora N. Rogers, Respondent, v. Charles S. Rogers, Appellant.
Headnote
Motion for alimony — an objection to the authentication of affidavits is not amiiable on appeal in the first instance.The objection that the affidavits used upon a motion for alimony and counsel fees were not properly authenticated, cannot be urged for the first time upon an appeal from an order granting the motion.
Appeal by the defendant, Charles S. Rogers, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 16th day of July, 1900, granting the plaintiff alimony and counsel fees.
Carlos C. Alden, for the appellant.
Charles Caldwell, for the respondent.
It may be that the affidavits objected to were not properly authenticated within the ruling of this court in Turtle v. Turtle ( 31 App. Div. 49 ). But that objection was not taken upon the hearing of the motion, and for that reason the defendant cannot avail himself of it here. The affidavits are sufficient to warrant the conclusion reached by the court below as to the right of the plaintiff
p. 196
to alimony and counsel fees, and the motion, therefore, was properly granted.
The order should be affirmed, ' with ten dollars, costs and disbursements. ■ . ■ . .
Present —Van Brunt,- P. J., Rumsey, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Cases cited
- Turtle v. Turtle 31 App. Div. 49 p. 195