
    Schultz, Appellant, vs. Schultz, Respondent.
    
      March 15
    
    May 1, 1945.
    
    
      J. E. O’Brien of Fond du Lac, for the appellant.
    For the respondent there was a brief by Reilly & Cosgrove of.Fond du Lac, and oral argument by Frank W. Cosgrove.
    
   Per Curiam.

On the appeal it was sought to raise two questions: (1) Do the findings of fact and conclusions of law support the judgment? The ground upon which this contention is based is that the court did not find the specific dates upon which the several acts of adultery were committed by the plaintiff. The findings taken in connection with the undisputed evidence clearly'sustain the judgment.

The second contention is that the court did not properly divide the estate of the parties between them. The plaintiff was grossly at fault, a divorce having been granted for adultery. It is considered that the conclusion reached by the trial'court was right; No useful purpose would be served by setting out the details.

Judgment affirmed.  