case more v more February the that a before and in consideration of a marriage  and a portion with his intend wife convey land to trustee upon trust to pay  pound per and to the lady for her separate use she many year after the  marriage upon dispute between her and her husband leaves he and go abroad the  trustee there be great arrear of the annuity bring a ejectment for recovery of  the term and the husband his bill for a injunction to stay the proceed in  ejectment Lord chancellor be of opinion he can not relieve against the payment  of the annuity notwithstanding the husband by his bill offer to receive his  wife again and pay her the annuity if she will live with he but direct a  account and on payment of the arrear of the annuity the injunction to be  continue or otherwise dissolve and if default in the grow payment the wife to  be at liberty to apply see Sidney v Sidney p W Eq ab pl Blount v winter Cox p  W watkyns v watkyns post vol sir Richard Francis more by settlement date the  that of October make before and in consideration of the marriage to he have  between the plaintiff and defendant and of pound her portion convey land to  trustee for year upon trust to pay out of the rend pound a year tax free by  half yearly payment to lady more for her separate use the marriage take effect  and after live above twenty year with great harmony upon some difference and  dispute arise between the husband and wife she go private from he in January  and get into France and now reside there and have prevail with her trustee to  bring a ejectment for the recovery of the term there be great arrear of the  annuity due they be proceed to judgement and execution when the husband think  proper to bring his bill in equity complain of his wife withdraw herself and  insist that she be entitle to the annuity only during her cohabitation with he  and offer to pay the annuity if she will live with he atkins and to receive  her kind and forgive what be pass and therefore pray that he may be relieve  against the payment of the annuity and may have a injunction to stay the  proceed in ejectment after the ejectment bring by the trustee the husband  commence a suit in the ecclesiastical court for a restitution of conjugal  right and upon the wife not appear to the process of the court a sentence of  excommunication be pronounce against her for the plaintiff in this case there  be two point chief insist upon first that his wife by her misbehaviour in  causeless desert her family have forfeit her pinmoney second that it be intend  for her only to spend in her family upon which it be argue that by the  marriage contract she be oblige to cohabit and that fail in this she ought not  to have her annuity and that therefore it be equitable to restrain her till  she return and life with her husband and behave as she ought to do and that he  have no remedy to get her back but by stop this pinmoney that this allowance  be only to promote harmony between the plaintiff and the defendant and to  enable her to do act of bounty in her family therefore when the reason for it  cease the allowance ought to cease likewise that in many case the court have  interpose to make a provision for a wife on the misbehaviour of the husband  acquire ration they ought to interpose where the wife misbehaves as in the  case of Colemore v Colemore SC post vol and Oxenden v Oxenden vern and that in  the present case the lady be desert her family in the manner she have do be a  sufficient reason for the court to interfere so far as to stop the payment of  the pinmoney in order to induce her to return to her duty Mr Cox for the  defendant argue that these three consideration natural arise upon this case  first whether the settlement shall be take strict or whether it shall be take  to intend a benefit to the defendant on condition only of cohabitation second  if to be construe conditional only then whether on cruel usage she be not  justifiable in separate from her husband three whether the usage here have be  such as may justify her separation atkins er p he argue that accord to the  word and legal operation of the deed there be a provision at all event for the  defendant of pound a year and quoad hoc she be to be consider as a feme sole  and as a stranger to the plaintiff and to take in other matter extrinsic and  not appear from the word of the deed will be judge of another deed not of this  in the case of will which general allow the great scope in order to let in the  intent the construction have always be bind and around atkins scribed to the  word for the general rule have uniform be that unless the intent can be  collect from the word it be in vain to urge it for that otherwise it will be  make a man will not construe it and deed be to be construe more strict and the  rule of law be that they be to be take most strong against the grantor and  most beneficial for the grantee   b and   light a and that no one contra  factum suum venire to be able Inst but to come into the construction contend  for on the part of the plaintiff will be to invert both these rule in astry v  Ballard Mod it be say man grant must be take accord to usual and common  intendment and where word may be satisfy they shall not be strain further than  they be general use for no violent construction shall be make to prejudice the  right of any one contrary to the plain meaning of the word if the word then in  the present case be to govern they be so express and plain that they leave no  room for construction and to put a meaning upon they contrary to the plain  sense will be bring thing to the utmost incertainty in Edricks case   b the  judge say they will not make a construction against express word and yet there  be a strong equity in that case to induce they to do it if in the present case  the defendant stand in need of the aid of this court from any defect in her  settlement it may with some colour of reason be say that she have forfeit her  right to it by her elopement but even in such a case though it appear that a  wife have live in open lewdness yet she be not dismiss with such a answer for  in the case of Mildmay v Mildmay vern and Chan Cas the plaintiff a feme covert  who have pound per and settle on her by her husband to be pay out of certain  rend suggest by her bill that he have on purpose to defraud her of this  annuity procure the tenant to surrender their estate on which the say rend be  reserve and pray that it may be make good to her by decree of the court and  notwithstanding it appear that she be a very lewd woman and have elope the  Lord chancellor order that the husband shall stand in the place of the tenant  and admit the rend Payable and she to recover it at law as well as she can  there the settlement be mere voluntary and after marriage and the wife charge  not only with elopement but oh pen lewdness and yet it be think reasonable to  decree in her favour and give her such relief that without it she must have  fail at law in the present case the settlement appear to be upon the high  consideration that of marriage and a large portion and the utmost charge upon  the lady be a bare elopement if therefore in mildmay case it be unreasonable  to aid her legal remedy a strong it will be unreasonable in the present case  to restrain her from pursue it as to the offer of the plaintiff to receive her  and on her return to pay the annuity there be many case where such a offer  against the express contract of the party have be reject atkins as in the case  of ceiling v Crawley vern and numberless more to the same purpose for if a man  will with his eye open make a bargain that he after find reason to repent of  he be not entitle to relief here it be the effect of his own folly and he must  take the consequence it may beside be material to consider what species or  kind of offence it be that the defendant stand charge with it be at most but a  simple elopement which be a offence not take notice of or any way punishable  by the law of the land by the commonlaw a wife be entitle to dower  notwithstanding a elopement accompany with adultery and though by the statute  of Westminster west ch adultery and elopement be make a bar to dower yet it  have always be take so strict that the one without the other have often be  hold to be not within the statute Perk pl Fitzherbert Abr title dower pl  Fitzherbert N B let h certain both together though a bar to dower will be no  bar to her claim a provision make for her by a jointure and though in the  spiritual court the husband may sue her for restitution of conjugal rite and  for refusal she may fall under the censure of the church yet that be not in  respect of elopement for such a suit may be as well where there be a  cohabitation as otherwise to say then that in equity she be punishable or that  she may in this respect be atkins er p deprive of any of her legal privilege  will be to set up a arbitrary legislative power in the court to declare  offence and to punish they by no other measure than it be own discretion that  a woman be justifiable in desert her husband where he use her with cruelty can  be dispute but then another question will arise whether the usage which the  defendant have meet with in the present case be sufficient to justify her  conduct or not it appear evident from the proof on both side that there be  continual quarrel between the plaintiff and the defendant about the pinmoney  and they become so public that one witness swear the plaintiff himself declare  his wife have be advice by a clergyman to go away from he and many of the  witness full prove that the plaintiff divest her of all kind of management and  make her not only as a cypher in his family but take from her even the respect  due to her from his servant whether this be such ussage as may justify her  conduct must be submit it be observe by puffendorff in his book of the law of  nature and nation in the chapter of marriage that in case a husband deny his  wife the respect due to her sex and her relation so as to show himself not so  much a kind partner as a troublesome vexatious enemy it shall seem very  equitable that she may be relieve by divorce barbeyrac in his note d cite to  confirm this the theodosian Code lib title in the law of our own country there  be hardly any footstep to go by or on which it may be say with any certainty  what be cruelty in the husband in the case of the wife of one Cloborne Hetly  it be so far hold that spit in her face be cruelty in the husband that the  court refuse to grant a atkins prohibition to the spiritual court on a suit  for a separation and alimony find on this cause and say by Richardson chief  justice certain the matter allege be cruelty for spit in the face be  punishable in the starchamber Lord chancellor this be entire a new case and I  do not remember any like it that have ever yet come in question nun have be  cite and I believe there be none but it be not this or any other difficulty in  the case itself that make it necessary for I particular to speak to it but  because some thing have be moot of a much high nature that require it the  point to be consider be first whether in any case this court ought to restrain  a legal remedy which a wife or her trustee have to recover a separate  maintenance against the husband second if from the evidence in the present  case there be any reason to lie this restraint upon the defendant upon the  first it have be argue that the defendant have causeless desert her family and  stand out contumacious against the proceed in the spiritual court though this  be a bill prim impression I shall think there may be case where a husband will  be entitle to come into this court to restrain the trustee of his wife by a  decree here from proceed at law for her separate maintenance and it will be  reasonable to do this especial when she elope out of the jurisdiction of the  ecclesiastical court for that will be defeat their power and there have  believe be case where there have be a sentence for alimony in the spiritual  court in which this court have award ne exeat regnums in aid of the spiritual  jurisdiction these separate maintenance be not to encourage a wife to leave  her husband whatever his behaviour may be for be this the construction it will  destroy the very end of the marriage contract and be a public detriment if a  wife shall elope be guilty of adultery or criminal conversation or shall leave  her husband without any cause and the ecclesiastical court can only punish her  for contumacy but she be entire out of their reach as to any other punishment  I shall think a husband right in his application to this court to prevent her  trustee from proceed at law to recover her separate maintenance see Watkins v  Watkins post vol but then the relief must arise from a very plain case where  there be a criminal conversation plain prove and plain put in issue see Sidney  v Sidney p W watkyns v watkyns post vol clarke v periam ibidem Lord and lady  Donerails case ibidem but this be not the present case for here be no  incontinence and nothing but the bare elopement be put in issue so that it  will turn upon the second point whether upon the circumstance of this case  there be any reason to lie such a restraint upon the defendant atkins er p two  thing have be urge in behalf of the plaintiff first that the wife have elope  without a cause second that she have be duly summon in the ecclesiastical  court on the part of the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal right and have  continue in contumacy and as she have be thereupon excommunicate which be all  the ecclesiastical court atkins can do as she be out of their jurisdiction the  husband can have any fruit from his suit there as to the first I be afraid  these separate provision do often occasion the very evil they be intend to  prevent and if the plaintiff have make his wife uneasy in respect of the  pinmoney as there be great reason to believe he do though this will not  justify her go away yet it may be a excuse and possible this agreement before  marriage may be design to provide for the wife if such dissension shall happen  between the party as will be a just inducement for they to separate though  their quarrel shall be of such a nature as be not proper to be lie before a  court as to the objection that the plaintiff can have no effect from his  ecclesiastical suit lie no great stress upon it for it be not institute in the  spiritual court till eight year after her go away and after the ejectment  bring by the trustee and though the spiritual court only fix citation upon the  church door or some other place yet the husband who know where she be may have  give notice to her or at least to her attorney who be employ in the suit at  law it have therefore the appearance of be commence in order to lie a better  foundation for a suit here I do not find that the husband have ever make any  application to the wife since she separate to induce her to return and  therefore this case be distinguishable from whorwood v whorwood Ch can because  there the husband before the bill bring offer to be reconcile and desire to  cohabit with her and use her as his wife nor be there any separate maintenance  in that case on the contract of the party there be another thing that have  great weight with I the husband pay the annuity since the separation for six  month after the wife be go from he when she petition the court for other money  upon a different trust he upon a application by a cross petition to stop this  express say that he have constant pay her the annuity ever since she leave he  and offer to continue it this be a strong presumption that he think at least  she be excusable in separate herself from he these be the circumstance of the  case I be of opinion there be not sufficient foundation to give the plaintiff  the general relief pray by his bill against the payment of the rentcharge of  one hundred pound a year but that he be entitle to be relieve against the  ejectment on the term hereafter mention and therefore do in the first place  direct the master to see what be due to lady more for the arrear of her  annuity and to tax her cost at law and upon the plaintiff payment of what the  master shall certify to be due to the defendant for the arrear of lie annuity  and the cost at law and continue the grow payment of the say annuity accord to  the marriage settlement the injunction to be continue but in default of  payment of the arrear of her annuity and cost at law then the injunction to be  dissolve and the plaintiff bill dismiss with cost to be atkins tax and if the  plaintiff shall make default in continue the grow payment of the annuity then  lady more be to be at liberty to apply to the court and I do further order  that the plaintiff in a fortnight time pay to the defendant solicitor a  hundred pound on account of the arrear of her annuity now due Reg lib b fol  N B Mr attorney general after the decree be pronounce say this be so uncommon  a case that probable it will never happen again Lord chancellor reply if you  think so you must have a very good opinion of the lady for in love hc in all  respects sew up vine injury suspitiones unfriendliness to lead in bellum pax  turned back atkins er p