#### Lavada M. Pillo, Appellee, v. Francis M. Pillo, Appellant.

Appeals and errors—when finding of chancellor not disturbed. Where the evidence is close and conflicting, and the Appellate Court cannot say that the finding of a chancellor was manifestly contrary to the evidence, such finding will not he disturbed.

Separate maintenance. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. James A. Creighton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1908.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 17, 1908.

Albert Salzenstein, for appellant.

Graham & Graham, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree for separate maintenance rendered upon a bill filed by appellee against appellant. The issue of fact as to whether or not appellee was living separate and apart from appellant, her husband, without her fault, was submitted to a jury and a verdict returned in the affirmative. The evidence is in close conflict and we cannot say that such finding, which was approved by the chancellor, was manifestly contrary to the evidence, nor that under the evidence as to appellant’s financial status the amount allowed by the chancellor as alimony was grossly excessive.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.