1. A defendant who resists a motion that he be held in contempt for failure to obey the order of the court to pay the petitioner a certain amount weekly as maintenance, on the ground that he was unable to do so, must show that his inability was real.
2. It is not enough to show that compliance with the order of the court was inconvenient or difficult, or that exact obedience would result in great hardship to him, or that the order, by reason of changed circumstances, had become inequitable.
3. Circumstances that would move the court of chancery to modify the order for maintenance do not justify a party who ignores the mandate.
4. Held, that the defendant has failed to prove that his delinquency arises from his inability to pay.
PER CURIAM.
The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.