case watkyns by her next friend versus Ferdinando watkyns her husband December  see wright v Morley Ves a bill bring by a wife for maintenance on suggestion  of cruel usage by the husband and on the part of the defendant as a excuse for  his ill usage deposition be offer to prove a criminal conversation unless it  be express charge by the answer the court will not suffer such deposition to  be read a bill be bring against the husband to have a maintenance out of her  fortune upon a suggestion of very cruel usage without any provocation on her  side she be a widow when the defendant marry her and have a considerable  fortune several deposition be read of the husband cruel usage the plaintiff  upon her marriage with the defendant trust he to draw up a bind with his own  hand to secure seventeen hundred pound for the wife in case she shall survive  he he likewise enter into a bind for pay five hundred pound to the plaintiff  sister for prevail upon the plaintiff to marry the defendant deposition be  offer on the part of the defendant charge very high provocation as for  instance the plaintiff draw in the defendant to admit one Ralph Cox into his  house who he soon after perceive to hold a strict correspondence with the  plaintiff than he ought to have do and that upon his admonish her in a very  mild manner she fly into a very great passion and leave the house and that the  defendant go atkins to her and entreat her to return and offer to forget every  thing that have pass and that the husband upon her refusal break open the  plaintiff cabinet and take out the seventeen hundred pound bind Lord  chancellor say the court will not suffer any deposition to be read to prove a  criminal conversation against a wife unless it be express charge by the  husband answer and make part of his defence and excuse for ill usage of her  and be deny in the case of Sidney versus Sidney wms more v more ante vol  clarke v periam post but it be charge by the answer in this case that she  behave in a very indecent manner with one Cox he though it sufficient for the  defendant to read evidence against the plaintiff of criminal conversation for  it be not necessary to make the charge in gross term but sufficient as it be  charge here for the court to know what be aim at by the answer the deposition  be then read for the defendant suggest that the plaintiff hold a private and  unlawful correspondence with Ralph Cox one of the plaintiff witness and  likewise to her be see in bed with one daw there appear to I to be a  sufficient ground for this court to direct a inquiry what estate the defendant  have to make satisfaction for impose upon the plaintiff at the time of the  marriage for if there be fraud and imposition on the part of the husband  atkins er p this court will interpose and make the agreement accord to the  intention of the party and though the bondmay be void in law yet the court  will establish it in favour of the plaintiff vide gage v Acton Com salk cannel  v buckle p W Acton v pierce vern Terrel v hope post stoit v Ayloss l Charles  Rep beard v beard post vol the great objection be the elopement and adultery  of the wife and that the court will not give any maintenance to a wife who  misbehaves in this manner and it be true upon full proof of such bebaviour  that they will not allow the wife any thing for maintenance more v more ante  vol but the evidence here be not quite full though in one of the deposition a  witness indeed go so far as to say that she see her mistress in lead with one  daw between the first and second marriage but I do not much like the account  this witness give of herself that she live as a servant to the plaintiff  before the second marriage and notwithstanding she see this improper behaviour  in her mistress yet she do not think it wrong to live on with the plaintiff  even after her second marriage and where a witness be under a necessity of  first exculpate herself no regard ought to be give to her evidence on the  plaintiff sideathere be very strong and substantial evidence of her be cruel  and barbarous use atkins on the defendant side very lose and trifle with  regard to this point for there be evidence only of person who now and then  come into the family which amount to nothing at all for a husband and wife may  live very unhappy together and have notwithstanding prudence enough to keep  within bind before stranger I can do no more in this case than Lord chancellor  king do in the case of Colemore and Colemore SC cite post Vol when he frame  his decree by way of analogy to the writ of ne exeat royal power and impound  the fortune of the husband for the wire maintenance till he shall think proper  to return I must declare the bind to be a imposition and that the money ought  to have be secure to her to be pay out of her own fortune in case she survive  he I must likewise refer it to a master to take a account of the personal  estate of the plaintiff before her marriage come to the hand of the defendant  since the marriage or to any other person by his order and for his use and so  much of it as remain in specie of capital and principal money arise out of  such estate and effect to be place out in real or personal security in the  name of a trustee to be approve of by a master in trust to pay the interest  arise therefrom in such manner as be hereafter mention during the joint life  of the plaintiff and the defendant and in case the defendant shall die in the  lifetime of the plaintiff then to secure the sum of pound the principal money  in the bind to be pay to the plaintiff within six month after the defendant  death and as it appear to the court the husband have possess himself of the  great part of the wife fortune and be go out of the kingdom without leave a  provision or maintenance for her I decree that the interest arise from the  trust money shall be pay to her till he think proper to return and maintain  her as he ought and decree the defendant to pay cost Reg lib b fol but  notwithstanding this case and that of William v Callow vern it seem that the  court of chancery can compel the husband to pay a separate maintenance to the  wife unless upon a agreement between they or after a divorce in the  ecclesiastical court see head v head post Vol Fonblanques treatise of equity  vol