[1, 2] Granting bail pending appeal is within the discretion of the trial court judge. State v. Seeley, 116 N.H. 57, 357 A.2d 870 (1976); Moses v. Helgemoe, 115 N.H. 672, 348 A.2d 354 (1975). This court will reverse the trial court's decision only on evidence of a compelling nature.

RSA 597:1-a (Supp. 1979); see, e.g., State v. Seeley, 116 N.H. 57, 357 A.2d 870 (1976). When they determine whether to execute such a bond, they must necessarily consider the possibility that a defendant may remain at large during the pendency of an appeal.

In the absence of a transcript, it is usual to presume that the evidence supports the action by the court. State v. Seeley, 116 N.H. 57, 357 A.2d 870 (1976). In addition, however, in this case the affidavits show an estimated income of $35 per week for the defendant plus $64 per month on a second mortgage. It appears that defendant's living expenses are provided by his mother and that after the temporary order he went to Florida and returned for the hearing on the merits.

Moses v. Helgemoe, 115 N.H. 672, 348 A.2d 354, 355 (1975); Moses v. Helgemoe, 116 N.H. 190, 355 A.2d 428 (1976). There being no evidence indicating there was an abuse of discretion (State v. Seeley, 116 N.H. 57, 357 A.2d 870 (1976)), the order is Petition denied.

Moreover, we are cognizant of the limitations and difficulties of appellate review in cases such as this where there is no transcript of the proceedings below. See State v. Seeley, 116 N.H. 57, 58, 357 A.2d 870, 871 (1976); Timberlane Regional Educ. Assoc. v. Crompton, 115 N.H. 616, 618, 347 A.2d 612, 613-14 (1975). The defendant does not quarrel with the settled proposition that the party seeking a modification and reduction of a support order has the burden of showing that the order was "improper and unfair."