It does not appear within what time “the defendant has earned $140.00 since the original order was signed,” as the judgment bears no date, and there is no finding on the defendant’s plea of disavowal. In re Odum, 133 N. C., 250, 45 S. E., 569. Hence, under authority of Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N. C., 189, 195 S. E., 351, it would seem that the record is wanting in sufficiency to support a judgment for contempt or “willful disobedience” of the court’s order. C. S., 978; West v. West, 199 N. C., 12, 153 S. E., 600; S. v. Clark, 207 N. C., 657, 178 S. E., 119.

The case is unlike Dyer v. Dyer, 213 N. C., 634, 197 S. E., 157, or Pain v. Pain, 80 N. C., 322.

Whether the matter was properly before the resident judge “at chambers” is not decided. C. S., 986; In re Brown, 168 N. C., 417, 84 S. E., 690; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890.

Error and remanded.