Binning

Defendant husband appeals from an interlocutory judgment of divorce granted to the wife upon the ground of extreme cruelty. Appellant’s counsel raises four points, viz., (1) that the property settlement agreement, was infected with fraud and undue influence and should have been disapproved by the court, (2) that the court erroneously added to: the terms of the property agreement, (3) insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of extreme cruelty on defendant’s part and untruth of his charge that plaintiff had been guilty of adultery, and (4) error in refusing to grant to appellant the divorce upon his cross-complaint.

Points 1, 3 arid 4, as presented in appellant’s brief, are attacks upon adverse findings and seem to proceed upon an assumption that á court of review should follow counsel's lead in' reweighing the evidence. The cardinal rules for presentation of such claims upon appeal have been ignored in this instance. Rosenthal v. Rosenthal, 197 Cal.App.2d 289, 294 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]: “We reiterate certain principles that we stated in Davis v. Lucas, 180 Cal.App.2d 407, 409 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 479 ] ; ‘The appellate court starts with the presumption that the evidence…