Case ID: ill-app_210/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice O’Connor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Earle Stark, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,553.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Criminal law, § 409
      
      —what objection cannot be raised for first time on writ of error. An objection that a motion for increase of an award of support to a wife and child, on an information charging defendant with their nonsupport, that the motion was not accompanied by any petition, cannot be raised for the first time on a writ of error.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago;' the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 13, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Earle Stark, defendant, for without reasonable canse neglecting and refusing to maintain and provide for his wife and minor child, 2 years- old. From an order requiring defendant to pay $10 a week towards the support of his wife and child, defendant brings error.
    Defendant on trial was found guilty and put on probation for a year, on condition that he pay his wife and child $6 a week. The amount was afterwards increased to $7 a week March 7, 1917, and on April 11, 1917, motion was made for further increase, which was allowed at $10 a week on April 17, 1917, defendant being present with counsel.
    Johnson & Herr, for plaintiff in error.
    Maclay Boyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, “ game topic And section number.
    
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Husband and wine, § 243 —when award for support of wife and child not excessive. Ten dollars a week was not excessive as an award to a wife for the support of herself and a minor child, upon abandonment by the husband, where her husband was earning $85 a month and required $12.50 a week for his own expenses, notwithstanding the wife was also earning $12 a week.