Ziglar v. . Ziglar

*103 Stacy, C. J. Plaintiff assails tbe validity of the trial on the ground that he was unduly prejudiced by the admission of testimony tending to show adultery on his part. This evidence was competent, at the time of its introduction, as it was in support of the allegations of the cross-action. In re Southerland, 188 N. C., 325, 124 S. E., 632; Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N. C., 558. There was no motion to strike when the defendant withdrew her complaint against the plaintiff. On the record as presented, the exception cannot be held for reversible error. S. v. Hawkins, 214 N. C., 326, 199 S. E., 284; S. v. Tuttle, 207 N. C., 649, 178 S. E., 76, and cases cited. Nor is the court’s charge on the issue of adultery open to valid objection. The issue was one of fact with the evidence contradictory. The jury has answered in favor of the defendant. True it is, the plaintiff’s evidence was direct and positive, and he complains that the verdict is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. But this was a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. G. S., 1-207; Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686. We have discovered no valid exception on the record. The verdict and judgment will be upheld. No error.