
    Argued November 2,
    decided November 17, 1908.
    
      LAING v. LAING.
    [97 Pac. 1135.]
    In a suit for divorce, where neither party is satisfied with the decree rendered by the lower court in dismissing the suit as to each, and both appeal, evidence examined, and 7xeld, that neither plaintiff or defendant is entitled to a divorce.
    From Umatilla: Henry J. Bean, Judge.
    This is a suit by Effie E. Laing against Arthur Laing for a divorce, on the alleged ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant, by a counterclaim in equity, seeks the decree. From a decree dismissing the suits, both parties appeal.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. Will M. Peterson and Mr. Robert J. Slater.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. James H. Raley, Mr. James A. Fee, and Mr. Charles Ferguson, with oral arguments by Mr. Raley and Mr. Fee.
    
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a suit by the wife for a divorce on the alleged ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and personal indignities, rendering her life burdensome.

The answer controverts the material allegations of the complaint and sets forth facts, as a counterclaim in equity, based upon which the defendant seeks the decree. The reply puts in issue the averments of new matter in the answer.

The cause having been tried, the suit was dismissed as to each party, and they severally appeal.

It is considered unnecessary to allude to or comment upon the testimony given at the trial, a careful examination of which convinces us that neither party is entitled to a divorce; and, this being so, the decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.  