
    10305
    RAYMON v. RAYMON.
    (101 S. E. 566.)
    Separation — Suit Monet and Temporary Aeimony Not Discretionary Wi-iere No Prima Facie Case Shown.- — On a hearing in a divorce case of an order requiring defendant to show cause why temporary alimony and suit money should not be allowed, trial Court erroneously exercised its discretion in allowing suit money and a temporary alimony where the testimony did not make out a prima facie case.
    Before Whai/Ey, County Judge, Richland, -- term, -.
    Reversed.
    Action by Rosa Raymon against Sam Raymon for a ■divorce. From an order granting suit money and temporary alimony, the defendant appeals.
    
      Messrs. Cole. L. Blease and Claude N. Sapp, for appellant,
    submit: The County Judge abused his discretion: 68 S. C. 123; 91 S. C. 245; Hair v. Hair, 10 Rich. —. The order is appealable: 79 S. C. 59.
    
      Messrs. J. H. Cooper and B. W. Mullins, for respondent. Mr. Mullins
    
    submits :The order was within the discretion of the County Judge, and will not be interfered with unless the discretion is shown to have been abused: 99 S. C. 754; 107 S. C. 99; 95 S. C. 103; 91 S. C. 245; 80 S. C. 277; 51 S. C. 379.
    December 22, 1919.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

His Honor, the County Judge, issued an order in the above entitled action requiring the defendant to show cause why temporary alimony and suit money should not be allowed the plaintiff.

After hearing the return to the rule and the affidavits in behalf of the respective parties, he granted an order: “That the defendant, Sam Raymon, pay to the plaintiff or her attorneys of record .the sum of $100 as suit money,-the said sum to be paid in -installments of $25 every 30 days, and the first installment to be paid 10 days from the date of this order. It is further ordered that the defendant pay to the plaintiff the further sum of $20 a month as temporary alimony, said sum to be paid monthly and until the further order of this Court, and the first installment to be paid 10 days from the date of this order.”

The appeal is from this order.

This Court is satisfied that the testimony does not make out a prima facie case, and that the discretion of his Honor, the County Judge, was -erroneously exercised.

Reversed.  