
    (78 South. 751)
    No. 23057.
    STATE v. EDRINGTON.
    (April 29, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied May 27, 1918.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Courts <§=?224(2) — Supreme Court — Jurisdiction — Appeals from Juvenile Court-Constitution.
    Const, art. 85, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction of suits involving alimony, is a general law which must yield to article 118, providing that appeals from the juvenile court shall be allowed on matters of law only.
    Appeal from Juvenile Court, Parish of Orleans; Andrew H. IVilson, Judge.
    Prentice E. Edrington, Jr., was found guilty of unlawfully neglecting and refusing to provide for the support of his minor child, and ordered to pay alimony for her support. On his failure to pay, rule to show cause was made absolute, and defendant applied for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, which were refused, and defendant committed to prison, and, having furnished bond, was released, and rule to show cause for nonpayment was made absolute a second time, and defendant moved for new trial and suspensive appeal, which was allowed.
    On motion to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
    Prentice E. Edrington, Sr., of Reserve, for appellant. A. V. ■ Coco, Atty. Gen., and Chandler C. Luzenberg, Dist. Atty., and Eugene Stanley, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans (Vernon A. Coco, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   PROVOSTY, J.

No question of law is

presented by the record, but only the one of fact — whether the amount which the juvenile court has condemned defendant to pay monthly for the support of his child is beyond his ability. Eor claiming jurisdiction of that question by this court he invokes article 85 of the Constitution, giving jurisdiction of “suits involving alimony.” But conceding, for argument, that the alimony there meant is not exclusively that which a husband may be required to pay to his wife, said article is a general law which must yield to article 118, to the effect that “appeals from the juvenile court shall be allowed on matters of law only.”

Appeal dismissed.  