delivered the opinion of the court.
Freels v. Freels, 195 Ill. App. 119 (1915)
Oct. 6, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,848
195 Ill. App. 119
Emma Freels, Appellee, v. Hugo Freels, Appellant.
Gen. No. 20,848.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John P. McGoobty, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 6, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Suit for divorce by Emma Freels against Hugo Freels. The bill charged the defendant with cruelty and adultery, and alleged that he was a man of large means, with an income of $10,000 or $12,000 a year. The defendant, by his sworn answer to the bill, denied that he was guilty of the charges made against him, and denied that he was possessed of as much property as was stated in the bill of complaint. His answer admitted ownership of real estate valued at $16,000, exclusive of the incumbrances thereon, however. The defendant also filed a cross-bill, accusing his wife of adultery, and it was evident from the allegations of the original bill, the answer thereto and the cross-bill, that there was a very bitter quarrel between the two. Upon a preliminary hearing as to the question of alimony pendente lite, the Circuit Court ordered the defendant to pay $6 a week until the further order of the court, and $25 solicitor’s fees. The defendant failed to pay such allowance and a rule was entered to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. At the hearing the defendant stated that he had four commissions for sales of real estate, aggregating $200, which would become due when the sales were consummated, but that he had no money and had borrowed $150 from his employer to meet expenses. Upon a second hearing, it appeared that one of the sales had been closed, but that his employer, instead of paying over defendant’s share of the commission, had kept it to apply upon the loan above mentioned. The court evidently thought that these facts indicated an *120intention on the defendant’s part to evade the order of the court, and again continued the hearing, with the statement that he must pay at least $25 on account of alimony, or he would be committed for contempt. When the next hearing came on, the defendant claimed that he had been unable to raise more than $10, which he offered to pay to the complainant. Thereupon the court adjudged him guilty of contempt of court and entered an order of commitment. This appeal followed.
Abstract of the Decision.
Contempt, § 70 * —when order of commitment is proper. Evidence held, to justify an order of commitment for failure to pay alimony, it appearing that the defendant could have raised the small amount involved and that the chancellor was lenient when he failed to comply with the court’s order.
T. F. Monahan, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.