
    Argued April 3,
    affirmed April 9, 1918.
    HENDRY v. HENDRY.
    (171 Pac. 1051.)
    Divorce — Decree Based on Contradictory Testimony.
    1. As trial judge who had witnesses before him was better able to appraise the value of the testimony than the court on appeal, decree in divorce suit will be affirmed, where court on appeal is of opinion that evidence sustains decree.
    From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge.
    Department 2. This is a suit for divorce. There was a decree for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. John J. Fitzgerald and Messrs. Johnson & Logan, with an oral argument by Mr. Fitzgerald.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Seton & Strahan, with an oral argument by Mr. Waldemar Seton.
    
   McBRIDE, C. J.

In these cases a recital of the testimony is worse than valueless, serving only to spread upon the record the details of domestic discord, of which the least said the better. The testimony is contradictory, and as the trial judge had the witnesses before him he was much better able to appraise the value of the testimony than we. Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that the evidence sustains the decree, and it is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

Moore, McCamant and Bean, JJ., concur.  