Cooper

This is an" action for divorce, on the ground of extreme cruelty. The complaint charged the defendant with many acts of cruelty, extending over a period of several years, and the answer admitted all the averments of the complaint in this regard. After trial the court found that all the averments of the complaint *46 were true; that five thousand dollars would be a fair share of the community property for the plaintiff, and that the property rights of the parties had been amicably settled; that the defendant was better fitted to have the care, custody, and control of the children than the plaintiff, and was better able to support them. A decree was accordingly entered, dissolving the bonds of matrimony between the parties, and awarding to the plaintiff five thousand dollars as her share of the property, and to the defendant the care and custody of the two minor children. Within ten days after the decree was entered, the plaintiff changed her attorney, and moved for a new trial, on the ground that the findings were not justified by the evidence, because they were supported only by her own uncorroborated testimony. The motion was denied, and thereupon she appealed from the judgment…

I concur in the judgment, on the ground that the plaintiff is not a “ party aggrieved " within the meaning of sections 657 and 938, Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was granted all the relief she prayed for. She was asked by the court whether she wanted the children, and she replied that she did not, because Mr. Cooper had always-been kind to them, always had the care of them, and could take better care of them than she could. The property rights of the parties had been settled amicably between them. There is nothing, therefore, in .the record upon which the plaintiff can base a claim of grievance, and I am at a loss to understand the object of the motion for a new trial, and of this appeal. While it is true, as stated in McBlain v. McBlain, 77 Cal. 508 , cited in the briefs, the public has an interest in the result of every action for divorce, and the court, on grounds of public policy, should exercise its discretion to the fullest extent in securing to both parties a full and fair hearing on the merits, the public has no right of appeal, nor has any one the right to represent it. Plaintiff probably desires a new trial for the purpose of securing some additional relief in…