
    Grace I. Valentine, Respondent, v. Charles C. Valentine, Appellant..
    
      Husband and wife—allowance to the wife in a judgment for divorce, when reasonable— an objection that a wife may not testify as to her husband’s income is not mailable for the first time on appeal— limitation on her testimony.
    
    An allowance made to a wife by an interlocutory judgment granting her an absolute divorce from her husband of $300 per annum for the support, maintenance and education of each of the two children of the marriage during their . infancy, and of §500 per annum for her support and maintenance during her life, is not excessive where it appears that the sums allowed amount to bub little more than half of what the husband conceded to be his annual income.
    In such an action it is error to permit the wife to testify concerning her husband’s property and income, but the error is not available to the husband for the first time upon appeal.
    
      Semble., that the. wife was prohibited from being examined as a witness, except as to such matters as. are specifically mentioned in section 831 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    Appeal by the defendant, Charles C. Valentine, from portions of' an interlocutory judgment of absolute divorce in favor of the plaint tiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9.tk day of March, 19.03, upon the decision of the. court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term.
    
      David May, for the appellant.
    
      Henry J. McCormick, for the respondent.
   Patterson, J.:

Judgment in an action for divorce was rendered in favor of the plaintiff herein, the marriage between her and the defendant was dissolved, and she was awarded the custody of two infant children. By the interlocutory decree it was provided that the defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $300 per annum for the support and maintenance of each of the two children during their infancy, and that he also pay to her for her support and maintenance the sum of $500 during her natural life. The defendant appeals only from so much of the interlocutory .judgment as requires the. payment of the sums of money above mentioned, the ground of appeal being that the sums allowed are excessive, in view of the evidence relating to the defendant’s property and the sources from which he' derives his income.

These sums are not excessive, even upon the appellant’s own statement. They amount to but a little more than'one-half, of what he concedes to be his income. The allowance of $300 per annum for the support, maintenance and education of each child is not excessive, and $500 a year, which is less than $10 a week, is á very moderate allowance for the support of the plaintiff.

The objection is urged that an error was committed by the court in allowing the plaintiff to testify concerning her husband’s property and his income. It has been held that in an action for divorce under the statute, the wife is prohibited from being examined as a witness regarding other matters than such as are specifically mentioned in section 831 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Colwell v. Colwell, 14 App. Div. 80 ; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 63 Hun, 516.) But we think it is too late to raise the objection for the- first time on appeal. No exception was taken on the trial to the introduction of this evidence, and it was allowed to go before the court with the acquiescence of the defendant

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien, Hatch and Laughlin, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  