.In the Supreme Court of Hawaiian Islands. December Term:, 1S95. the Before Judd, C. J., and Fkeab, J. Caroline A. Iming v. Robert Laing. Robert Laing v. Caroline A. IiAlXG. - . A decree granting or denying a divorce, like theTerdict of a jury, cannot be set aside if there is sufficient evidence to . .support it. The amount of alimony rests in the sound discretion of the trial court subject to modification on exceptions only for ' cogent reasons. A new trial will not be granted for the introduction of newlv discovered evidence which is merely cumulative; nor for the admission of new witnesses known at the tlnle' of trial, but to procure whose attendance due effort was not made; nor 'for the admission of a 'newwitness al though unknown at the time of trial unless f be. testimoay which uch! wltnesj would give is shown by an affidavit of the witness himself or itiniess gbdd cause' is n ' shown' for the absence of such affidavit. OPINION OF THE COURT, BY FREAB, J. Caroline A. Lain? pued for a divorce .from her husband. Robert Laing, on th& grounds" of extreme cruelty and non-support, and. be, by cross-bill, sued ' for kdivorce from her on the grounds of . extreme cruelty, and habitual intemperance. The Circuit; 'Court granted .her a divorce on bothpt the grounds '" fct up'andl$18 00 per month- alimony nntll further order, butirefused him a divorce, And refused his motion for -a new, trial based on. the ground of rieTTly discovered, ievi'deo'ce". ,biken to these rulings- , The evidence shows a chronic state' nf Hnrnpctli)' Hlannrrl hptwppn triA Tinr. ties resUlting no't i'nf feqnently IrJ the exercise, or personal, violence upon each other, perhaps' chiefly on tUe hnshaiid's nart: aleo more or less ad didtfon" to' the jobB of Intoxicating . drinks, chiefly on .the wife's part; and olff ultimate uescruuir iruui uer auu failure to support ber., "Whether the evidence' is such as to en(ile one or the other or each or neither to a divorce" iB a question upon which . there ie room for considerable differ ence of opinion. It is unnecessary for us to state to what conclusion we should probably come; if the' case was before us de novo, for we must consider the decision of the trial court Id the light of a verdict of a jury, and, there being sufficient evidence to sup port it, we cannot reverse it. Kill' kiria v. Hake, 9 Haw. 60J. The amount of alimony rest? in the sound discretion of the trial court un-. derail the .circumstances of the .case and is subject to modification on exceptions for cogent reason only. In this case each party bad a little property in a foreign country, nque.bere. He had until latelv been in receipt of a salary of $70.00 per month but baB since beed out' of employment; sue has and has bad no. employment. There'were no' children' by thlB' marriage; by former marriages she bad rae child and he two children. The parties have been married only about two years. Each has been greatly at fault. In February, 1895. he, agreed to'pay her 325 00 per month during an agreed separation for four .months. In view of' these facta undoubtedly tbis is a case in which the wife should receive but little alimony, and the Circuit Judge expressed himself in effect a'9 of the same opinlou, and in allowing $18 per month until further order be allowed what be considered just under all the circumstances, and we cannot say' that be abused his discretion. Lazarus v. Lazarus, 9 Haw., 352. The wife's needs and the husband's capacity as well as her faults are to be' considered even in the case of a divorce by a husband from his wife for her fault that she may not be suddeuly thrown upon the-world in a helpless condition and become a burden to others. The amount of ali mony is subject to change by the trial court. "We are also informed that Mrs. Laing has offered, and is still willing, to accept $25 for counsel fees and $250 for herself in lieu of alimony. The motion, for a new trial on the ground of newly dif covered evidence is based solely oumij .affidavit by Mr. Laing that five certain person', naming them, would, if a new trial should be granted, give certain testimony which js set forth. The evidence is, at least for the' most part, merely cumulative. The testimony which it is claimed four of the- persons -would give is not .newly discovered. It was known io Mr. Laing and his counsel, and the witnessed were expected to be present at the trial, but they were not subpoenaed, and due effort was not made to procure them, and no request was made for a continuance so that the persons might be brougbt in, but, on the contrary, the case 'was submitted apparently on the belief that their testimony was not needed. As' to the remaining person, without commenting on the fact that te events to which she is supposed to be willing to testify took place after the commencement of .the suit, and are such as would not be likely to have effected a different result if they had been in evidence, we need merely calf attention to the fact that there is no affidavit by herself as to what she would testify, and no excuse shown for the absence of such an affidavit. Mr. Laing's affidavit, so far as it relates to this person, appears to be based on hearsay merely." The motion was properly overruled. Lopez v. Kaiaikawaha, 9 Haw., 27; Napahoa v. Chinese Union, 7 lb., 379; The King v. Makamaka, lb. 394. The exceptions are overruled. "W. A. Kinney for C. A. Laing r E. P. Dole and G. A. Davis for R. Laing. Honolulu, January 3, 1896.