case clarke versus periam July upon a rehear S c post a bill bring to  establish a bind for secure a annuity of per and give the plaintiff as prmium  chastity a cross bill pray the security may be deliver up as the plaintiff be  a common prostitute the defendant counsel offer to prove the plaintiff guilty  of lewdness with a particular person it be object the charge in the cross bill  be only she be a lewd woman the defendant ought to confine herself to a  general character and not to particular instance Lord Hardwicke think the  objection of great consequence to the practice of the court and take time to  consider till the first day of rehearings after the term this be a bill bring  by the plaintiff to establish a bind for secure a annuity of pound per and  give her as prmium chastity the defendant by a crossbill insist the plaintiff  be a lewd woman and a common prostitute and atkins for that reason be not  entitle to have the annuity establish and therefore pray that the security may  be deliver up when this cause be first hear the original bill be dismiss and  it be decree in the cross cause that the bind shall be deliver up to be cancel  and that the plaintiff in the original cause shall pay the defendant in that  cause and the plaintiff in the cross cause cost in both cause Reg lib a fol Mr  clarke counsel for the plaintiff in the original cause say the annuity be only  per and and not to take place till after the death of the obligor a material  piece of evidence be offer now for the plaintiff which be not at the former  hear the register of her baptism which appear to be in and therefore she can  be only at the time of her acquaintance with periam in the year and he be then  of full age so that it can be conceive that she be capable of impose upon he  and seduce he to the give this bind for the law presume infant not capable to  govern and manage themselves much less of impose upon other especial on person  of full age ten witness for mrs clarke and only one of they a relation swear  positive that she have a unblemished character previous to her acquaintance  with periam there be no evidence of her return to vicious course after periam  leave her which must have be the natural consequence if she have be abandon  before and therefore this be a strong presumption she be not a lewd woman  atkins er p there be but four witness for the defendant who swear to  particular instance of lewdness and these not from their own knowledge but  that they be tell so by person who have a criminal conversation with her the  counsel for the defendant offer evidence to prove the plaintiff guilty of act  of lewdness with a particular person one Mr Abingdon before she be acquaint  with periam a objection be take by the plaintiff counsel that the charge in  the crossbill be only that mrs clarke be a lewd woman of a infamous character  and that the bill do not require any answer to this and therefore the  defendant in the evidence ought to confine himself to a general character and  not to particular instance accord to the rule of law upon examine to character  for the charge here be so lose and general that it be impossible for the  plaintiff to know at what time or place or with what person they intend to  charge her with act of lewdness and that in order to let they into this  evidence they ought to have charge that she be keep b the person they pretend  to have have criminal conversation with her atkins the allegation be general  that she be a lewd woman but the evidence go to particular instance of  prostitute her chastity Mr Murray on the same side argue that they ought to be  confine to evidence as general as the allegation in every case at law where  the character of a person be call in question there the examination must be  general and go on good round because they will not suffer witness to come upon  surprise with particular instance which the arty be not prepare to answer if  they have examine to her be a lewd woman in general or to her be general of a  infamous character it will have be relevant to the issue the case of Lord and  lady Donerail which have be mention by Mr clarke be not full state because  take only from the print case by the bill lady Donerail charge that after her  marriage she behave with the utmost duty and tenderness Lord Donerail in his  answer say she do not behave with that duty and affection as become a virtuous  woman much less this defendant wife virtue when apply to a wife in all  language be emphatical apply to chastity the evidence in that case to support  the defendant charge be a particular instance of lewdness with Mr Barry the  Lord chancellor of Ireland be of opinion it shall be read and upon the  strength of this evidence chief dismiss lady Donerails bill she appeal to the  house of lord and in February it be hear and upon the dangerous consequence of  admit such evidence on general charge to the character and reputation of woman  the house of lord will not permit it to be read it can not possible be foresee  what this witness will say and therefore the plaintiff be not capable of  crossexamine he to this particular fact Mr attorney general insist in support  of the propriety of this evidence that in the case of Bennet v vade June ante  S c though the allegation be general and general weakness only charge upon sir  John lee yet the court admit instance of particular weakness to be read which  be a parallel case with the present atkins he say in the case of Lord and lady  Donerail the doubt in the house of lord be whether the word virtuous in the  defendant charge can let he into proof of her violate her chastity and the  lord be of opinion that as the very maintenance and support of lady Donerail  depend upon the event of this cause that they ought to be tender of give too  great latitude to the word virtuous or extend it to one virtue more than  another and therefore deny the evidence he cite Sidney v Sidney which be first  hear at the roll where sir Joseph Jekyll allow evidence to be read of the same  kind with this but Mr attorney general say he be doubIful whether Lord  chancellor Talbot on the appeal admit it to which the plaintiff counsel make  answer that his lordship refuse to admit it wms Mr brown of the same side it  have be say no evidence must be read in this court unless the nature of the  evidence itself be put into issue where lewdness be charge upon a woman be it  necessary to set forth at what particular tavern or with what particular  gentleman she have be guilty of lewdness beside this will be attend with ill  consequence because it will lie open atkins er p the case too much and put the  adversary party upon their guard and give they a opportunity of square their  own evidence by the proof of the other side in case of insanity the court  never expect particular act to be charge and yet the evidence go to particular  instance Mr welldone of the same side insist that the interrogatory be general  and that this evidence come out upon the general interrogatory of be she or be  she not a lewd woman and of a infamous character Lord chancellor I do not  remember that this objection be make at the former hear and as the chief  stress of the cause depend upon it it be become a question of very great  weight and therefore I will put it off to the first day of rehearings after  term and will look in the mean time into the case of Lord and lady Donerail  and Sidney and Sidney and Cox and Robinson about a twelvemonth ago in Lincoln  inn hall this question beside be of great consequence to the rule and practice  of the court and therefore deserve consideration atkins July rehear Lord  chancellor the question upon which this cause stand over be whether the  deposition of one Roger take in behalf of the defendant in the original cause  ought to be read it be a attempt to prove that mrs clark before the time of  Periams give the bind to her be keep by a particular person one Mr Abingdon  and have criminal conversation with he the objection be that the particular  fact to which Roger be examine shall have be put in issue special and that  they be not sufficient so in this cause more v more ante vol as to the nature  of the suit the original bill be bring to have satisfaction out of the  personal estate of the late Mr periam for the bind the cross bill be bring by  the widow of Mr periam and be to be relieve against this bind and to have it  cancel and the equity be find upon this that it be give by Mr periam to mrs  clark ex ugly causan and that she be a lewd woman of a infamous character and  therefore it be insist the court shall relieve against it the counsel for the  plaintiff in the original bill insist that under this suggestion in the cross  bill the plaintiff there be not entitle to examine to any thing but her  character in general because it be impossible for mrs clark to be prepare to  give a answer to the particular fact charge for though every body be suppose  to be ready to support a general character yet not a particular fact but I be  of opinion the present case differ from all those case relate to examination  to general character both as to the reason of the thing and as td the  authority in the first place with regard to authority there be one in point  Whaley versus Norton all vern I do not mention this case as a authority of  judgement but only to show the intention of the court and the bar at that time  for it be not put in issue there that the defendant be a common strumpet the  bill be to be relieve against a bind to a woman who the plaintiff keep it not  be charge or put in issue in the cause that she be a common strumpet the  deposition to this fact though prove not allow to be read vern atkins there  have be two case since I sit in this court the first be atkins versus far  February vide I t atk the charge there be that at and before the time of his  become acquaint with her she be a woman of lewd fame and bad character and a  orange girl at the playhouse the next be Robinson versus Cox after t term the  charge there that she be a woman of lewd fame and they enter into the most  particular account and particular fact that can possible be imagine of drawer  be send by gentleman to bring her to particular tavern and yet the present  objection be not then make in either of those case it be the common way of  charge matter of this sort so that what be now dispute be think to be the rule  of evidence at that time in the case of Sidney versus Sidney February p W S c  at the roll a bill be bring for performance of article enter into before  marriage by the wife against the husband sir Joseph Jekyll dismiss the bill  and be of opinion that the deposition in that case to prove her a adulteress  ought not to be read because the answer of the husband have not put the charge  of adultery in issue for the word be she have misbehave herself which do not  imply adultery for you must certain make a general charge of it atkins er p  the case which be principal rely upon for the plaintiff in the original cause  be Lord and lad Donerail the bill be bring by her for separate maintenance the  question arise upon this lady Donerail have charge by way of merit that she  have behave with the utmost duty and respect my Lord Donerail in bar to the  equity insist onby the bill say in his answer she do not behave with that duty  and affection as become a virtuous woman much less this defendant wife in  order to support this suggestion he enter into particular fact of her adultery  with one Barry and in the chancery in Ireland the deposition be read but upon  a appeal to the house of lord here they be not admit I be not present in the  house of lord at the hear of that cause and therefore do not know the  particular reason but a very strong one appear upon the plead themselves which  distinguish it from the present case and bring it to that of Sidney versus  Sidney because there be no express charge of adultery in Lord Donerails answer  atkins the virtue of a woman do not consist mere in her chastity for she may  be guilty of act of cruelty and indeed it appear in this very cause that she  have not only use her husband with inhumanity but beat he a woman too may be  addict to game and other extravagancy which be not a virtuous behaviour in the  present case the plaintiff herself have lie a foundation by suggest that she  be a keep mistress these be all the authority from thence may be gather the  uniform sense in those determination that it be sufficient to put in issue a  general charge of lewdness and that under this you may give particular  evidence and I think I have hear it lie down so by sir Joseph Jekyll but then  your particular evidence must be point and apply to the general charge if you  be to allege in the bill that the woman be keep by particular gentleman or  have criminal conversation with particular person the character of stranger  may suffer and bill will be stuff with indecent matter and private scandal  second as to the reason of the thing the case urge by the plaintiff counsel in  the original cause relate to criminal prosecution must be allow to be law for  in examine to character you can only enter into general fact but if there be a  criminal prosecution and the prisoner in order to strengthen the evidence for  his character enter into particular fact to support it this be call a  challenge to the prosecutor and then he may likewise examine to particular  fact but in criminal prosecution it come in only collateral and incidental and  be not the particular thing to be try and when that be the case they be not  suppose to be prepare with evidence but compare this with case where the  character be the particular issue to be try suppose in the case of a  indictment for keep a common bawdyhouse without charge any particular fact  though the charge be general yet at the trial you may give in evidence  particular fact and the particular time of do they the same rule as to keep a  common gaminghouse atkins this be the practice in all case where the general  behaviour or quality or circumstance of the mind be the thing in issue as for  instance in non compos chin it be the experience of every day that you give  particular act of madness in evidence and not general only that he be insane  so where you charge that a man be addict to drink and liable to be impose upon  you be not confine in general to his be a drunkard but particular instance be  allow to be give indeed there be one the case of barratry which be contrary  where in a indictment for this offence the defendant ought to have a copy of  the article to be insist on against he at the trial beforehand that he may  have a opportunity of prepare a defence but that be a particular case and  differ from all other for the draw of the line between pursue he as a barretor  and follow the course of his profession as a attorney be a very difficult  thing because it be a crime of which a attorney for the most part only can be  guilty wherever the general life or conversation be put in issue it be notice  to the person who S charge that she shall be prepare to take off the weight of  that evidence but where it come in collateral you shall be confine to general  evidence this seem to I to be the distinction and the ground of it and if I be  of a atkins er p different opinion I shall overturn the constant course of  this court and make the great confusion Lord chancellor upon the merit of the  cause propose that the bind shall be deliver up to be cancel and that there  shall be no cost on either side upon which it stand over for the plaintiff  counsel to recommend it to their client to acquiesce under this proposal the  next day by the consent of the party in both cause Lord Hardwicke order that a  perpetual injunction be award to stay the proceed at law of the plaintiff in  the original cause on the bind in question his lordship with consent of the  party reverse the former decree as to cost and direct a perpetual injunction  to stay the proceed at law on the bind Reg lib a fol with respect to case of  this nature vide Whaley v Norton vern Matthew v Hanbury vern bainham v man  vern spicer v Hayward Prec Charles Cray v rook can tempt Talb Annandale v  Harris p W lady Cox case p W Robinson v gee Ves priest v parrot Ves walker v  Perkins burr hill v Spencer Amb ex part Cotterel Cowp