
    Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Leidy.
    
      Appeals — Assignments of error — Paper books — Quashing appeal.
    
    An appeal will be quashed where the assignments of error do not set out in full the order of the court below, where the entire record is not printed, and where there i§ no statement of the question involved.
    Submitted Oct. 2, 1916.
    Appeal, No. 213, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., directing respondent to pay for support of his two children in case of Commonwealth, ex rel., Maud L. Leidy v. Henry B. Leidy.
    Before 0ready, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Proceedings for an order of support.
    
      Errors assigned were in the following form:
    1. The court below erred when it did not dismiss this case, when, at the trial of this cause, on the 13th day of June, 1916, it appeared that the allegations that had been sworn to by Maud L. Leidy, in her complaint upon which this suit was founded, to wit, “That she was the wife of Henry B. Leidy.” “That without reasonable cause, Henry B.Leidy,on August, 1916, separated himself from her and his minor children, Earl and Willard.” And, “that since that time said Henry B. Leidy has neglected to maintain her, the said Maud L. Leidy,” are each and every of them not true.
    2. The court erred when it ruled, orally in court, during the trial of the cause on June 13, 1916, that “the thing before the court is the question as to the support of .the children.” And “the defendant, Henry B. Leidy, ought to pay something for the support of the children” and too, “the court is going to take judicial notice of the fact that there are children in existence.”-
    
      November 13, 1916:
    3. The court below erred when, on June 13, 1916, it “ordered and decreed that the .defendant, Henry B. Leidy, pay to his wife,” etc.
    4. The court below erred when, on June 13, 1916, it “ordered and decreed that the defendant, Henry B. Leidy, pay, etc., for the support of his minor children,” etc.
    5. The court erred when it by an order of the court dated June 13,1916, adjudged that the defendant, Henry B. Leidy, is in contempt of court, for having failed to comply with the order of the court, dated the same day, directing him to pay, etc., for the support of his minor children, etc.
    
      E. D. Mitchell and 8. M. Roberts, for appellant.
    
      Michael F. McCullough, for appellee, filed no printed brief.
   Opinion by

Williams, J.,

The paper books of the appellant show a total disregard of the rules of this court. The assignments of error áre defective in not setting out in full the orders of the court below (Bule 14). The entire record is not printed (Rule 20). There is no statement of the question involved (Rule 23).

We do not feel impelled to seek a way by which the appellant may be aided in his attempt to evade his moral and legal duty to support his children.

The appeal is quashed.  