ment of alimony pendente lite, Harris v. Harris, 3 Hagg. 351.

Where alimony pendente lite was allotted, the suit heard and sentence given against her, on her appealing, the Court held her entitled to alimony from the day of the appeal. The appeal suspends the sentence, but the suit still continues: and if it is no operative sentence, the husband is obliged to maintain his wife until the suit is terminated. Were it not allowed from the date of sentence there might be an interval during which the wife might have no maintenance or support; and this should not be, Loveden v. Loveden, 1 Phill, 208; Briscoe v. Briscoe, 3 Phill. 206; but it is in the discretion of the Court.

A wife de facto is entitled in a suit of nullity of marriage to her alimony pendente lite, inasmuch as a fact of marriage is necessarily pleaded, Miles v. Chilton, 1 Rob. 684.

An assignment by the husband after the commencement of a suit for divorce by the wife cannot affect her title to alimony pendente lite. The Court allotted such alimony at the rate of 50%. per annum, where the husband's income was 140%, and refused to stay the issue of the monition for fifteen days, Brown v. Brown, 2 Hagg. 5.

The husband is liable for the wife's necessaries supplied during the suit, but he is liable only to a reasonable amount; and, therefore, if the wife during that period incur debts to an extra

vagant amount, that fact will not be considered in allotting alimony, Hayward v. Hayward, 28 L. J., J. P. & M. 9.

In a suit for divorce by the husband, who was insolvent, the Court refused to allot alimony, although insolvent's father was known to possess considerable property. But the Court suspended further proceedings until some maintenance should be afforded to the wife, Bruere v. Bruere, 1 Curt. 566.

In a suit for a dissolution of marriage by reason of the wife's adultery, where a divorce a mensâ et thoro in the Old Court had been obtained, the wife is not entitled to alimony pendente lite; but she is entitled to tax her costs de die in diem, Holt v. Holt and Fleming, 28 L. J. P. & M, 12.

If the husband has not appeared it would seem that alimony pendente lite, cannot be allotted.

The Court cannot under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, s. 46, make any order for the attendance of the husband, in order that he may be cross-examined on his affidavit in a question of alimony pendente lite, Hopper v. Hopper, 28 L. J., P. & M. 26.

The Court will not allot alimony pendente lite where the husband has not appeared, otherwise the wife, who is mistress of the suit, might unreasonably delay, Deane v. Deane, 28 L. J., P. & M. 23; Tomkins v. Tomkins, Ib. 24 (note.)

Permanent Alimony.-Permanent Alimony is

generally a moiety of the husband's whole income, Taylor v. Taylor Cons. of Lond. 1791, cited 2 Phill. 236; Cooke v. Cooke, 2 Phill. 40.(a) Smith v. Smith, 2 Phill. 235. But where the husband was a peer, one third was allotted; for the public has an interest in a peer's suitably maintaining his title, Countess of Pomfret v. Earl of Pomfret. Arches 1796, cited 2 Phill. 236. Where the delinquency was gross, but there were two sons and four daughters, whom the husband was to maintain and educate: the Court deducted the estimated expense of their education, and allotted a moiety of the remainder, Otway v. Otway, 2 Phill. 108.

Alimony is allotted for the maintenance of the wife from year to year. As a general rule, therefore unless particular reasons are set forth, the Court will not enforce a monition for payment of arrears of several years' standing. If the wife does not apply within a reasonable time, the Court will infer that she has made some more beneficial arrangement. But where there had been no application to reduce the alimony, the Court decreed alimony from one year prior to the monition-the husband. being allowed all payments on account of the wife during that year, and thereafter the alimony to be continued according to the original decree. (b) Wilson v. Wilson, 3 Hagg 329 (notis): and where

(a) See also the cases then cited.

(b) See 3 Phill. 258.

no application was made to the Court, either to enforce payment or to obtain a reduction of alimony, it refused to decree for the arrears De Blaquiere v. De Blaquiere, 3 Hagg. 322.

Where profligate adultery was proved against the husband, the Court allotted permanent alimony at the rate of 600l. per annum (in addition to 120%. a year, the wife's separate income) out of a net property of 4000l. a year (the husband having twelve children to maintain and educate), from the date of the sentence-three years previously; the cause having in the mean time appealed, but remitted, no steps being then taken by the appellant, and the remaining delay being caused by his absence abroad, Durant v. Durant, 1 Hagg. 528.

Where the gross income of the husband's real estates was 6000l. per annum, the mother's jointure 1000l. per annum, and the wife's pin money had been fixed at 500l. per annum, and the husband had voluntarily undertaken to pay the wife 2007. a year for the maintenance of the children, the Court said, that being unable to enforce this last arrangement, it would allot 1000l. a year permanent alimony, allowing the husband to deduct from that sum any payments exceeding 2001. a year which he might make on account of pinmoney, thus affording collateral security for the payment of 2001. a year for the children, Mytton v. Mytton, 3 Hagg. 657.

As the growing age of the children is taken into consideration when the alimony is originally fixed, the Court will not on that account diminish the comforts of the wife, though there may be cases where the Court would relieve the husband owing to heavy expenses arising from the children, De Blaquiere v. De Blaquiere, 3 Hagg. 330.

If the faculties are improved, the wife's allowance ought to be increased; and if the husband is lapsus facultatibus, the wife's allowance ought to be reduced, De Blaquiere v. De Blaquiere, 3 Hagg. 329.

Where the husband applied for the reduction of permanent alimony on account of his having lost considerable sums by unprofitable speculations, the Court said, that if he chose to speculate, he must bear the consequence, and refused to alter the amount of the allotment, and directed the arrears and costs to be paid, Neil v. Neil, 4 Hagg. 275.

It is the husband's duty to see that funds out of which the alimony of the wife is paid are properly invested, De Blaquiere v. De Blaquiere, 3 Hagg. 328.

If the income of the wife has much improved, the Court may decree a reduction; but where a house had been furnished at the expense of the husband, he being in a rear in payment of the alimony, the Court set off the one against the other. The Court also refused to interfere where