The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-17 00:00:00

A. Fos. -
R. Acumenng (outing), to Mariner, and- A. Wilson, to Crocodile
nun) Engineer, A. Mahar& (acting), to Roma

.MP Pwsm

tato intelltgence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Truant : The Lord Chancellor, Lord Sidney, and the Bishop of
tit Any*.
WILSON S. WILSON. ANTICLIS OP SEPARATION.-
BPICIFIC P517011.11.04C11. INJUNCTION. Mr. Lloyd,
second counsel for the respondents, proceeded to maintain
the Vice-Chancellor's decree, contending that this case fell
within the principles on which the courts both of law and
equity had for more than • century been recogaising deeds
of separation.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly replied, and distinguished this case from
all those in which the courts decreed specific performance of
deeds of separation. He insisted that his argument, in his
opening the first day, was not shaken by the other side ; viz.,
that the principle on which the courts of equity
end law acted in giving effect to deeds of separation,
proceeded on the ground that those ingredients adul-
tery or cruelty—on proof of which the courts spiritual
would pronounce sentence of divorce and alimony
InigAl exist; and, therefore, the parties might, to save
trouble and exposure, avree to do privately that which the
court spiritual would do for them. But, in this case, it was
clear, and admitted, that there was neither adultery nor
cruelty, but the wife left her husband's house, and instituted
• suit (or nullity of the marriage, whereupon the husband
was intimidated, and under the fear of exposure agreed to
• separation. This was • mere voluntary separation;
snd to give effect to it was against the policy of
the law,whichcontemplated husband and wife to live together
—did not recognise their separate existence—and against
the policy of marriage which required cohabitation of hus-
band and wife. He contended that the injunction restrain-
ing Mr. Wilson from seeking restitution of his conjugal
rights interfered with the jurisdiction of the spiritual court.
There was no mutuality in any part of this case. All the
legal _part of the consideration for the deed proceeded from
Mr. Wilson, via, the giving up of 2,0001. or 3,0001. a-year,
and all he was to get was the stopping of the suit fir nullity
of the marriage. But the next day after this deed had been
executed, Mrs. Wilson might proceed with the suit for nullity,
and no court could restrain her. Mr. Wilson desired to pro
teed with the suit, in order, after disposing of the wife's
charge of impotency against him, to obtain a sentence against
her for restitution, which was competent to him to do, u
appeared by the case of Clowes c. Clowes (3 Curtis). Sup-
pose he were to obtain such a decree, or that he and his wife
came to cohabit together voluntarily, and in either case an
cad was put to the articles of separation, how was Mr. Wil-
son to get back the property which the Via-Chancellor's
decree ordered him to convey to third persons What would
be the position of the court, after specific performance
in obedience to its decree, of a separation deed, to which an
end was put by the spiritual court or by the reconciliation
of the parties ? In no point of view was the Vice-Chancel-
lor's decree sustainable. It clashed with all the precedents
and interfered with the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts.
At the conclusion of the reply, at four o'clock, the Lord
Chancellor, in answer to Sir F. Kelly's expression of regret
that he had taken up so much of the time of the house, said
he did not at all regret the time taken up with the argument ;
the case was not only of great importance to the parties but
also to the doctrines and rules of tits courts applicable to
eases of this sort. He should, bef"ee moving the judgment
of the house, look into the C 4444 that were cited.