Broderick

In September of 1915 appellant brought suit for separate maintenance of herself and minor daughter, alleging as the grounds of action failure to provide and extreme cruelty. In November of the same year she brought suit for divorce and custody of the minor children and all the community property upon the same ground. On motion of respondent these two causes of action were transferred from the county of Santa Clara to the county of Kings, and he answered in each action denying the allegations of cruelty and failure to provide. He also filed cross-complaints in each action, alleging extreme cruelty and adultery and praying for a judgment of divorce. These actions were by stipulation tried together on March 14, 1916; findings were made that it was not true that respondent was guilty of extreme cruelty or failure to provide; but the court did find *Page 552 that appellant was guilty of extreme cruelty and of adultery. Pursuant to these findings, respondent was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce awarding him the custody of the minor son Lloyd and all of the community property except two thousand dollars. Appellant was awarded the custody of the minor daughter and the sum of two…

We do not regard as material to the decision the portion of the opinion reading as follows: "Consequently, in this case at least, the reason of the rule requiring corroboration is much modified and a lesser degree and quantity of corroboration will be exacted ( Blanchard v. Blanchard, 10 Cal.App. 203 , [ 101 P. 536 ]; MacDonald v. MacDonald, 155 Cal. 665 , [25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 45, 102 P. 927 ]), — and express no opinion thereon. *Page 561 The application for a hearing in this court, after decision in the district court of appeal of the third appellate district, is denied. All the Justices concurred.