CHAPMAN, Justice.
The first question presented by this record for adjudication is whether or not the plaintiff-appellee Irene Zaleski Spinella, by the evidence appearing in the record, carried the burden of establishing the existence of a common law marriage between her and the defendant-appellant Michael Spinella. The parties were each competent to contract marriage on March 27, 1948. On said date, according to the testimony, the plaintiff-appellee accepted a proposal of marriage as made to her by Michael Spinella. On this day they established their residence at 6570 Allison Road, Miami Beach, Florida, which home at the time was owned by the appellant. The parties lived together in the aforesaid home until their return from Europe in 1950.
We have carefully examined several hundred pages of testimony upon which the Special Master and Chancellor based their conclusions and held were legally sufficient to establish the existence of a common law marriage between the parties to this suit. It is quite true that disputes and conflicts on the point in issue appear in the testimony, but the probative weight thereof is to the effect that the agreement reached by the parties in the Spring of 1948, their holding themselves out as husband and wife thereafter, their cohabitation together, coupled with the birth of a child, and their visit in Europe and Cuba, during which time the relation of husband and wife was shown, are, in our opinion, legally sufficient to sustain the conclusion, as reached by the Chancellor below, that a common law marriage existed between the parties. See Chaves v. Chaves, 79 Fla. 602, 84 So. 672; Le Blanc v. Yawn, 99 Fla. 328, 126 So. 789; Thompson v. Harris, 148 Fla. 329, 4 So.2d 385, and similar cases.
The second question presented is whether or not the Chancellor below abused his discretion in concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the charges of extreme cruelty and the existence of a violent and ungovernable temper exhibited by the husband toward the wife as alleged in her bill of complaint. We do not have any new principles of law to enunciate on the point or points in issue as the applicable law has been well settled by this court for many years. The disputes and conflicts in the evidence on these controverted points, under our adjudications, were for the Chancellor below. See Kent v. Knowles, 101 Fla. 1375, 133 So. 315, and similar cases.
We fail to find error in the record.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.