566 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.

thereon. (I) And for the same reason, in several states of our
Union, there being no ecclesiastical court, the cognizance of such

matters has been held to belong most properly to the Court of
Chancery, (u)

In Maryland, there never was an ecclesiastical court, and there-
fore, the High Court of Chancery always had, even under the pro-
vincial government, entire jurisdiction of such cases of claims for
alimony, or for separate maintenance out of the husband's estate,
founded on his misconduct; (w) but this branch of the jurisdiction

(t) Whore wood v. Whorewood, 1 Cha. Ca. 250; Oxenden v. Oxenden, Gilb. Eq.
Rep. 1; Head v. Head, 3 Atk. 550; Anonymous, 2 Show. 282, 1 Mad. Chan. 386,
note.—(u) Purcell v. Purcell, 4 Hen. &, Mun. 507; Pratherv. Prather, 4 Desau. 33;
Rhame v. Rhame, 1 McCord. 205.—(w) Galwith v. Galwith, 4 H. & McH. 477;
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 1 Bland, 101.

MACNAMARA'S CASE.—This case was brought before the court by a petition,
filed on the 13th of October, 1707, by Margaret Macnamara against Thomas Mac-
namara, her husband. It stated, that she having been before constrained to seek
redress from the Chancellor against the cruel usage of her husband, was then, once
more, compelled by his continued severities, daily manifested to the world, not only
by threats, sufficient from a man of his ungovernable temper to frighten a poor help-
less woman out of her life, but also by merciless stripes, the most scurrilous language
unbecoming a man, by a tyrannical domineering carriage, too severe to be used even
to slaves, and by a beastly lust, she blushed to name it, in the gratification of which,
his indifferency in the use of white or black, clean or foul, was such, that nature's
law, self-preservation, dictated the danger of any commerce with him. That there
was no safety for her under the same roof with him, he having frequently, in his
mad raptures, exclaimed against himself for not making away with her. She there-
fore humbly implored protection from his barbarous cruelties. And prayed that she
might be permitted to live separate from him; that he might be obliged to allow her
such a reasonable maintenance, as, upon consideration of his circumstances, might
be thought proportionable thereto; that he might be required to give good security
for the performance of what should be ordered, so that she and her poor children
might not be left destitute, and that he might be ordered to deliver her clothes and
other little necessaries to her, she being so stripped, that she had not wherewith to
shift herself.

In this case, John Seymour, the Governor and Chancellor, associated to himself
Major»General John Hammond, Judge of the Court of Vice-Admiralty, and one of
the council of the Province. Whereupon, it was Ordered, that Thomas Macnamara
be forthwith summoned to appear. And the officer having made return, that he had
gone out of town, it was Ordered, that he should appear on the 16th instant, to
answer the petition, and he appeared accordingly, but refused to answer.

16th October, 1707.—SEYMOUR, Chancellor.—The petition being read to Thomas
Macnaraara, he was ordered to answer thereunto, which he obstinately refused to
do, offering a plea, ore tenus, to the Chancellor's jurisdiction of the matter, and pre-
tending to support it by the practice of the spiritual courts in England, which in the
infancy, low circumstances, and present constitution of this province, prevent us
from being able to pursue here for want of such courts or maintenance for the pro-
per officers of them. Wherefore, the Chancellor being convinced, not only by unde-
niable testimonies, but even by his own knowledge of the inhumanity and barbarity