566 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.

may hear and determine, all causes for alimony, in as full and
ample manner, as such causes could be heard and determined by
the laws of England, in the ecclesiastical courts there.' (x) Hence,
I take it to be clear, that as the ecclesiastical courts of England
would, in all cases of cruelty and adultery, pass a sentence of divorce
a mensa et thoro, and grant alimony as a necessary and proper
incident of such a sentence; or that the court of Chancery, after
such a divorce, would award to the wife alimony, or a separate
maintenance out of the husband's estate; (y) so here, although this
court has no authority to pass any such sentence of divorce; or in
any manner to meddle with the contract of marriage itself; yet, ac-
cording to the provisions of this act, it cannot allow itself to receive
any matter as a sufficient ground for granting alimony alone,
which would not be a sufficient foundation in England, for grant-
ing a divorce a mensa et thoro, together with its incident ali-
mony, (z)

prise them into certificates and affidavits in his favour, &c.; by which he had, at
length, arrived to so intolerable a degree of pride and arrogance, that he had even
attacked the governor himself in his character and government, and affronted the
Governor and Chancellor publicly in the execution of his office, &c. &c. Whereupon,
it was enacted, that Thomas Macnamara should be disabled from practising as an
attorney or solicitor in any court of judicature of the province. And moreover, in
general, that the magistrates should observe with strictness the demeanour of prac-
titioners, &c. Dropping what related merely to Macnamara, the general provisions
of this law were a short time after re-enacted, and yet remain in force, 1719, ch. 4.

(x) February, 1777, ch. 22, s. 14.—(y) Oxenden v. Oxenden, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 1;
Hobbs v. Hull, 1 Cox, 445; Ball v. Montgomery, 2 Ves. jun. 195; Duncan v. Dun-
can, 19 Ves. 395.—(2) Wallingsford v. Wallingsford, 6 H. & J. 485.

LYNTHECUMB'S CASE.—This case was a bill filed by Jane Lynthecumb against
Gideon Lynthecumb, her husband.

14th March, 17S8.—OGLE, Chancellor,—Upon hearing counsel of both sides, it is
Ordered, that the defendant pay unto the complainant after the rate of three thousand
pounds of tobacco per annum, as a separate maintenance for her during the continu-
ance of this suit, or until further order, if the estate of John Ford, late husband of the
complainant, be left under the care and management of the defendant.

Some time after which, the case appears to have been again brought before the
court.

December, 1789.—OGLE, Chancellor.—Upon motion of the complainant's counsel,
it is Ordered, that the defendant do not take from the complainant her bed, bed-
clothes, furniture to the bed, and her wearing apparel.—Chancery Proceedings, lib.
J. R, No.4, fol. 65, 146.

SCOTT'S CASE.—This bill was filed on the 20th day of August, 1746, by Mary
Scott, against Andrew Scott. In which it is stated, that the plaintiff had been mar-
ried to John Abbingtott, who by his will appointed her his executrix, and soon after
died seized and possessed of a very large real and personal estate, of which she ob-