
    Estelle Hilton, Defendant in Error, v. Theophilis B. Hilton, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,087.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
    Opinion filed February 4, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Estelle Hilton against TheopMlis B. Hilton for separate maintenance. Defendant filed a cross-bill for a divorce. A decree for separate maintenance was entered in favor of the complainant, and the defendant’s cross-bill was dismissed for want of equity. To reverse a part of the decree, defendant brings error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Husband and wife, § 267
      
      —necessity of preserving evidence to support decree of separate maintenance. The party in whose favor a decree for separate maintenance is entered, to maintain it must in some way preserve the evidence, by a certificate of evidence or otherwise, or the decree must find specific facts, proven at the hearing, sufficient to support it, the duty not devolving upon the party against whom such decree is rendered.
    2. Husband and wife, § 267*—necessity for preserving evidence for review of decree of separate maintenance. Where the complainant failed to preserve in the record a certificate of the evidence upon which a decree for separate maintenance was entered and the decree did not recite a specific finding of facts, simply finding “that the allegations in the said bill contained are true, as therein stated; and that the equities of this cause are with the complainant,” held the findings were insufficient to sustain an order for separate maintenance.
    3. Husband and wife, § 267*—necessity of finding specific facts to support decree of separate maintenance. The fact that the certificate of the clerk shows that the transcript is not complete will not give rise to a presumption that a decree is properly supported by the evidence in the absence of a recital of a finding of specific facts sufficient to support the decree.
    4. Appeal and error, § 1035*—necessity of assignments of error. Where defendant does not assign any error for the dismissal of his cross-bill for divorce, in his appeal from a decree for separate maintenance, the court will not review the dismissal of the cross-bill by the trial court.
    
      The record did not contain a certificate of evidence. The certificate of the cleric, attached to the transcript of the record, recited that the transcript was complete, except as to certain orders, affidavits, appearances, substitutions, stipulations and notices.
    Charles S. Graves, for plaintiff in error.
    Michael D. Dolan, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.  