
    Fourth Department,
    January, 1917.
    James E. King, Respondent, v. Rose A. King, Appellant.
    Appeal from an interlocutory judgment of divorce, entered in the Erie county clerk’s office on the 10th day of March, 1916, with notice of an intention to bring up for review certain intermediate orders, etc.
   Interlocutory judgment and order affirmed, without costs. All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., who dissented in a memorandum; Lambert, J., not sitting.

Kruse, P. J. (dissenting):

1. I cannot say that the evidence does not prove the defendant’s misconduct, although there are strong circumstances indicating that it was brought about by procurement and' connivance of persons acting on the plaintiff's behalf. 2. The facts actually found by the trial judge and the evidence in support thereof not only permit, but, as I think, require, a finding that the defendant's misconduct was condoned by the plaintiff. He may not have intended that what he did and consented to should have that effect, but such, I think, was the legal effect thereof.  