
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. John R. Brown, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,546.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Ery, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Reversed and remanded with directions.
    Opinion filed April 28, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by The People of the State of Illinois in the Municipal Court against John B. Brown for the violation of an order of the Municipal Court to pay his wife ten dollars per week. To reverse the final order of judgment of the court,- defendant brings error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Criminal law, § 39
      
      —when appearance referable to recognizance and not attachment. Where a party who has entered into a recognizance for his appearance in court in case he violates an order of the court makes his appearance in court after a writ of attachment has been issued against him for-the violation of such order but not served, his appearance is not properly referable to the command in the writ but to the provisions of the recognizance.
    2. Husband and wife, § 275*—when judgment erroneous on prosecution for abandonment. Where in a prosecution for wife abandonment the court ordered defendant to pay a certain amount weekly to his wife, and thereafter, on information that defendant had defaulted in his payments, entered final judgment sentencing him to the House of Correction, such judgment, to be valid, must contain "a recital finding that defendant had violated the prior order by defaulting in his payments.
    3. Husband and wife, § 272*—how Wife Abandonment Act construed. The Wife Abandonment Act being a criminal statute must be strictly construed.
    4. Cbiminal law, § 601*—when not remanded for new trial on reversal. In a prosecution for wife abandonment, if there are no assignments of error which question the proceedings prior to the entry of final judgment, on appeal the case will not be remanded for a new trial, but the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded with leave to defendant to move for a proper judgment.
    William B. Denmark, for plaintiff in error; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.
    Maclay Hoyne, 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.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.  