Martin v. Martin

Per Curiam.

After a fairly extensive hearing, at which the boy, then twelve, now fourteen, years old, testified, the Referee, appointed to hear and determine the matter, decided that the “ boy’s welfare ” called for modification of the decree in the respects requested, and the Appellate Division affirmed. There being ample evidence to support both the finding that the youngster was old enough to testify intelligently and the conclusion that the modification was for his best interests and welfare, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.