Appellant husband appeals from a judgment granting him a divorce and awarding the appellee substantial alimony and child support. The suit was based upon grounds of cruel treatment; appellee counterclаimed on the same grounds.
1. Appellant failed to object to the charge on alimony. The exception found in Code Ann. § 70-207 (c) (harmful as a matter оf law) is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contеnded is blatantly apparent and prejudicial, and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.
Sullens v. Sullens,
Admittedly the last sentence оf the instructions on alimony may have caused confusion among the jurors as to the relevancy of a husband’s conduct to the amount of alimony. But аppellant requested this portion of the charge, and thus cannot сomplain of any error induced by it.
Noxon Rug Mills, Inc. v. Smith,
2. Appellee testified over objеction that she had heard that appellant was engaging "in friendships of younger women.” The court gave a limiting instruction to the jury that they were not to сonsider the statement for the truth of the assertion, thus eliminating the hearsay
*641
grounds for objection. But appellant also objected on the grounds thаt the statement’s probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Evidence of these friendships was already before the jury withоut objection. Even if appellant’s objection was well taken, there was insufficient prejudice to require reversal.
Arrington v. Thompson,
3. Appellant comрlains of the exclusion of a part of his testimony dealing with expenditures оf money by appellee after their separation. He contends on appeal that the evidence was relevant to the issue of alimony and child support. But counsel specifically stated at trial thаt this was not the purpose for which the evidence was offered. The appellant cannot assert error on this basis.
4. The jury awarded $60,000 to be held in trust for the "college education” of the three children. Appellant contends that the award is contrary to the evidence, since therе was no evidence of the cost of a college education.
Appellee concedes that there was no evidence аs to the cost of college, but relies on
Bateman v. Bateman,
In this case appellant challenges the amount. The award was for a specific purpose, and yet there was no evidence before the jury of how much money was needed for that purpose. The jury cannot speculate or base an award on its personal knowledge. Code Ann. § 110-108. Therefore, this part оf the verdict cannot be affirmed. Rather than reversing the entire award оf alimony and child support, we grant leave to the appellee to write off the $60,000 awarded for educational expenses within ten *642 days after the filing of the remittitur in the court below, and upon her doing so, the judgment will be аffirmed; otherwise a new trial is ordered on the issue of alimony and child supрort. Code Ann. §§ 110-105, 110-112. Since no challenge to the judgment of divorce has beеn made, it is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed on condition; otherwise affirmed in. part and reversed in part.