mtly(Mi'llttutV*|miHTo l*a !’lt;*lt;*«* V ^I Oil —-- 7•»n- l.oiirl Hiilf* Nullum ilt;htcrtU)I i*|mt Mrriim. Must l*u j1rrnw \\ if**'- ( ollliM‘1 It**- in !’•- el, 'orcr Vlt; lion. Km led |n l%Veilt .... , 1**1pur- l a !Mi(»|»ort lt;nlrr.the ] ■ fiIn Judge OannchnM rlt;r In an opinion tri deal decided tluit Nathan Raimev. Cp-i per Merton sliould pay ISO wuhtn st h- (hrw month* toward counsel fee*, m lom for his wiles attorney in a divorce di a*- proceeding pending In Montgomery i»i »n- | Court tothe The jurist gave Rani,-■«*- three 'e months which sustalna an opinion p I by handed down December 23. 1938 j e rho- I The court was asked to nile If un- Ramsey was in contempt of court aj De for failure to pay The divorce was pi ap- filed May 17. 19.7V but a muster was er The not appointed until April 13 19381 Ramsey has claimed he is financially unable to raise the money The m mls. | court says in part in ordering p,Ramsey to raise the amount. ijjvllle *We ,,M' n0 I*0041 r««on why the F] «-ourt cannot Issue an attachment ^ for fallttre to pay the wife’s coun-lnlt; . i*l f*i'!.. when awarded ar.d fixed by lM ‘ the court, provided the libellant is financially able to pay M The writer of this opinion has had .the libellant before him many time', linn upon attachment*. for failure to r comply with a 85 a week support order for his wife and son On three . occasions libellant has been sent to 1 jail for contempt He Is a painter 11 employed only occasionally, and has .suffered from HI health HI* earnings have been Insufficient to pavj the support order Proof of his fin- *: ,in andai ability to pay must not only !1‘ lie alleged but ought to be proved jdf * before an attachment should issue 1 dlThe attachment is designed to en- j ol *r*‘st force compliance with the order fori A1) (hen payment of alimony, counsel ita fees and costs, not to punish for,®* lorn being unable to perform it and [ P* Out ought not to Issue where the court ,n , is satisfied that the husband is des- cc 1 tltuu- of means of making the re- ’ vs ■son quired payments 1 rliHess i But we cannot allow the husband Ut to prosecute hi* divorce action until and unless he pa vs the reason- m able counsel fees for his wife, be-!tb! cause such services are allowed the1 inton wife a* will as nearly possible pro- ar *111. mote the administration of fair and] 930 impartial justice by placing the por- m err- ties on a par In defending their pr tiei- right*.cor 0j The record discloses that the lib- \0 M ellant has failed for II months to n jlpn «mply with an order for the pay-tlu. ment of counsel Tees, and that four Lin mid nr meetings for the purjjose of ulist »®'timony hav* already bt«njj1P held before the master, who has, A., last Inot u* ypt ,llrfl id* report with thehnlr p°urt 11 *'°ld he manifestly un-j ,r to allow the husband to fro-S,nR ceed further with the action as the *! wife would be helpless to defendvice 1 h*’r*’,f his charges rI Ftor these reasons Judges Dunne- i,‘’ ''•‘■r dlamlMed the rule for an at- ’fo|p tochmentwill I isri.OSlh FOR TH ANK SGI VINfi