
    George H. Molner, Appellee, v. Anna Molner, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 5,859.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Dobbance Dibell, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
    
      Statement of the Case.
    Bill by George H. Molner against Anna Molner for. a divorce charging adultery. An answer denying the charge was filed and also a replication, and the case was heard by the court without a jury. From a decree finding the defendant guilty of adultery, defendant appeals.
    Q. J. Chott, for appellant.
    Edward R. Nadelhoffer, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Divorce, § 45
      
      —sufficiency of the evidence to prove cause of divorce. Section 8 of the divorce statute, J. & A. j[ 4223, requiring, that the cause of divorce be fully proven by reliable witnesses, does not apply when a trial is had and issues joined by bill, answer and replication. In such case the ordinary chancery rules apply and the weight of the testimony is the thing to be considered even though that question may be decided in favor of a party having but one witness.
    2. Divorce, § 46
      
      —proof sufficient to sustain charge of adultery. Decree of divorce finding wife guilty of adultery, held sustained by the testimony of the paramour, where the wife denies what the paramour says and is discredited in her testimony by the fact that she denies other circumstances tending to incriminate her that are sworn to by other witnesses in corroboration of the paramour, and there is also testimony of other witnesses of her acts tending to show an adulterous disposition.
    3. Appeal and error, § 1713
      
      —when errors not argued are deemed waived. Where numerous errors are assigned on the record but no reference is made in the argument to any of the errors assigned, except that the decree is not warranted by the evidence, all other errors will be deemed waived.
    Dibbll, J., took no part in this decision.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.  