— This is an action by a husband for divorce from his wife upon the ground of cruelty. Plaintiff, a practicing physician, and defendant, a university graduate, intermarried in King county in 1910. No children were born of this marriage. At the time of the divorce in December, 1931, the ages .of the husband and wife were fifty-one years and forty-five years, respectively. Upon the trial, findings of fact, conclusions of law and an interlocutory decree were entered for the plaintiff. From the decree granting a divorce to the plaintiff, denying alimony to the defendant and providing for division of the community property, the defendant has appealed.
In our opinion, no good purpose would be served by setting out the specific charges on which the husband based his complaint, or detailing the evidence relating *216to those charges. Oar examination of the record convinces as that the evidence amply snstains the findings and the interlocntory order.
The appellant is not entitled to alimony. She is an edacated woman, a lingaist, qnalified to teach or parsae some other gainfal occapation or profession, if she so desires. Of the property, all of which was commanity property of the aggregate valae of $23,189, the coart awarded $12,853 to the wife, in addition to nineteen hundred dollars received by her from April to December, 1931, as temporary alimony and attorney’s fees. That is, the wife received approximately fifteen thonsand dollars. That was an eqnitable division of the property and the appellant has no jnst caase for complaint.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Tolman, C. J., Parker, Mitchell, and Holcomb, JJ., concar.