bird alias bell against bird arch court Hilary term February that in a suit  for nullity of marriage bring by the husband a de facto marriage be admit the  husband be to bear the expense of the wife follow Foden v Foden p see further  p post bird bring a suit against his wife bird alias bell for nullity of  marriage by reason of a former marriage in the court of the commissary of  saint Paul the wife appeal upon a grievance in admit certain article of the  husband libel and now she pray the court will decree the husband lee to pay  her a sum of money to pay her expense in hear the cause upon the grievance  which the husband oppose and insist that she be not his lawful wife and  therefore he be not to bear her expense the act of court set forth that it  appear from his libel that she and bird be marry together by licence at the  parish church of saint bennet wharf on that February and live together as  husband and wife till that October when he without any cause turn her out of  door without any money that she have have eight child by he under the say  marriage that her first husband be dead before her second marriage and that  bird in order to obtain a licence for their marriage swear her to be a widow  bird on the contrary only allege that her first husband be alive at the time  of his marriage to her that therefore such marriage be null ab beginning and  he be not bind by law to pay her expense bell make affidavit on that February  that bird turn her out of door on that October without any money that she have  nothing to pay the expense of the suit or to support herself dr Paul for the  wife she can be admit to sue as a pauper because she have a husband who be not  a pauper when he take the licence he swear she be a widow clarke praxis title  Oughtons edit in suit between husband and wife she be entitle to alimony and  cost they admit a marriage but object that it be null dr hay same side it be  sufficient for we upon this point to show a marriage de facto if a lee woman  bring a suit for impotency against her husband she be to have alimony and cost  during the suit and that be a much strong case than this for there the woman  who pray the alimony and cost affirm the marriage be null ab beginning whereas  in this case the man affirm and the wife deny it dr pinfold contra for bird at  present it be a question whether there be any marriage at all for if she have  a husband live at that time the transaction with bird be not a marriage but a  profanation of marriage to entitle to alimony and cost there must be a  marriage prove or confess No case cite where cost have be allow to the woman  in a cause of this sort give her cost be determine against we upon the merit  for it be declare bird to be her husband he swear her to be a widow in the  warrant for the licence upon her information lee er p judgement sir george lee  I say I have never meet with a question of this sort before and as no case  have be cite I suppose it never have be determine though it seem strange to I  that it have not but as there be no precedent I must determine it upon the a I  apprehend that this decision which seem to have be in a case chiefs impression  have descend to our time with the authority to which it be just entitle in all  matrimonial cause where a fact of marriage be establish and the party have not  separate income the husband be liable during the progress of the cause to pay  for the maintenance of his wife and the cost of the suit but in a case of  gross fraud it will I presume be competent to the judge to condemn the assert  wife in cost at the termination of the suit a general principle of law and  reason the man by lee his suit admit that he be marry to her de facto and it  be allege and not deny that he have live with her as his wife for many year  and have eight child by her and under that marriage he have a right jure  husband to possess himself of whatever she have and must be suppose to have do  so and consequent she can have no money of her own to defend herself against  his suit I must presume till the contrary appear in evidence that she be his  wife de jure as well as de facto for otherwise she must be guilty of bigamy  and be a felon by statute of James stat James c but the law presume on the  contrary every body to be innocent till they be prove guilty I must therefore  suppose her at present to be his lawful wife and as such entitle to have cost  as she pray to defend herself in this suit and she can be admit a pauper  because she be at this time a marry woman and her husband be not a pauper I  therefore decree bird the husband to pay her for the expense of hear the  appeal