Hawkins

The plaintiff was awarded a decree of divorce from the defendant on the ground of extreme cruelty. She was also given the custody of their two minor children. The answer alleged condonation as a special defense, upon which issue the court failed to adopt a finding. This is assigned as a ground for reversal. The appellant also contends that the court's finding that he had denied the paternity of one of his children is not supported by the evidence, for the reason that it lacks corroboration.

It is not contended that other acts of cruelty are not amply supported by the evidence. It is not necessary that all the alleged acts of cruelty shall be corroborated or even proved. It is enough if the facts which are corroborated fulfill the definition of extreme cruelty as it appears in section 94 of the Civil Code and justify the entry of a decree of divorce on that ground. Other findings may be disregarded as surplusage. (Avery v. Avery, 148 Cal. 239 [ 82 Pac. 967 ]; Hansen v. Hansen, 86 Cal. App. 744 [ 261 Pac. 503 ]; 19 C. J. 134, sec. 349; 9 R. C. L. 436, sec. 240.)

Upon the question of condonation, the evidence is practically undisputed. On account of acts of alleged cruelty on the…