
    Argued December 12, 1917,
    affirmed January 22, 1918.
    BLEYTHING v. BLEYTHING.
    (170 Pac. 305.)
    Divorce—Grounds—Mutual Quarreling.
    1. Deeree for defendant wife in divorce suit will be affirmed; the evidence as to her conduct showing no more than the childish bickerings of two young people, avoidable by mutual forbearance and self-control.
    [As to degree of proof required to establish cause for divorce, see note In Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1240.]
    Prom Clackamas: James U. Campbell, Judge.
    Department 1.
    Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
    This is a suit by Wallace M. Bleything against Maude E. Bleything for divorce. There was a trial, findings and decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Por appellant there was a brief over the names of Miss Lida M. O’Bryon and Mr. George C. Brownell, with an oral argument by Miss O’Bryon.
    
    Por respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Henry M. Esterly.
    
   Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice McBride.

There are no new questions of law raised upon this appeal, and to discuss the evidence would only be. to recount the childish bickerings of two young people who, by the exercise of mutual forbearance and self, control, could have lived pleasantly together. The evidence does not convince us that defendant’s conduct has been such as to entitle plaintiff to a decree, therefore the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Aeeirmed.

Mr. Justice Burnett, Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Harris concur.  