HEWITT v. HEWITT.

HEWITT v. HEWITT.

Cruel and violent treatment of the wife by the husband, and his refusing to permit
her to live with him; held to be sufficient ground to direct Mm to pay her a certain
sum as alimony; the amount to be adjusted with a due regard to his circumstances.
And as the several instalments became due, the payment, on petition by her, was
enforced by an order to shew cause, followed by a fieri facias.

This bill was filed, on the 7th of October, 1825, by Martha
Hewitt, against Eli Hewitt, her husband, to obtain an allowance
for alimony; upon the ground, that he had treated her with great
cruelty and violence, and that he had positively refused to permit
her to live with him, or to provide any adequate maintenance for
her, although he had a large real and personal estate, as specified
in a schedule exhibited with the bill.

To this bill the defendant immediately put in his answer, admit-
ting the facts as stated; and it was agreed, that the chancellor
should pass such a decree, as he might deem proper, allowing
alimony according to the schedule, which was admitted to be a
correct representation of the nature and value of his estate, (a)

(a) CODD v. CODD.—This bill was filed, on the 17th of February, 1727, by Mary
Codd, against her husband St. Ledger Codd, in which she stated, that he had not
only abused her with very opprobrious language, but had treated her in an inhuman
and barbarous manner; that he had by his cruel treatment deprived her of the use
of one of her arms; and had abandoned her, leaving her without support, to live in
a manner common to few people except slaves; and that he had altogether refused
to permit her to cohabit with him, notwithstanding her most humble and repeated
solicitations. Whereupon, the bill prayed, that he might be compelled to make her
such an allowance and maintenance as was suitable to his station and fortune, &c.

The defendant, by his answer, denied the alleged cruel treatment, and the having
deprived her of the use of an arm; and he averred, that she had broken open his
trunks and closets, and had taken thence a considerable amount of personal property
which she had sold for spirituous liquor to drink; that her habits were such, that he
could not live with her; and he had therefore built for himself a small house near to
that in which he had formerly lived with her, and which he had left her still to
occupy; and that he had been, and always was willing to allow her a suitable main-
tenance; but that his estate was small, unproductive, &c. After which the case was
submitted on bill and answer alone.

20th May, 1729,—CALVERT, Chancellor.—Decreed, That the defendant pay to the
complainant ten pounds per annum, by four quarterly payments; and it is also
decreed, that he provide her a house; and that the defendant pay unto the said com-
plainant, all her costs and charges by her in the said cause laid out and expended.—
Chancery Records, Lib, I. R. No. I, page 275, 280.

SARAH WEIGHT'S CASE.—This appears to have been a biil filed by Sarah Wright,
against Blois Wright, her husband, for alimony; but as the original papers are not to
be found, the particulars of the case cannot be given.

3th October, 1730.—OGLE, Chancellor.—Ordered, That the defendant pay to the