Consistory Court, May 15.
rThe Court was occapied for some hours in hearing the argument of counsel in this case, upon the question of costs,; Mrs. Gregg haT- ing applied to the Court to direct her costs to be paid. before pro- ceeding to the principal cause, which is brought by AMr. Gregg for a restitution ef conjugal rights, and has been pending ever since 1819. Certain acts of cruelRv lave been pleaded in bar by the wife; and as she professes to examine witnesses on the allegation in which those acts are charged, she bas prayed the Court to make the order in quextion as a preliminary step. The application was opposed by the counsel for 31r.Gregg, on the ground that the lady was in a much better situation to pay the costs ofthese proceedings than the husband ; that his business asasolicitor in Cork produced him not more than 5001. per annum, or there- abouts; and that he had nine children, seven of whom being still in ter ninority,'he was at the charge nf maintaining and edu- eating; that on the other hand, Mrs. Gregg, who had nobody to suppor; but herself, possessed a clear income of 5801. a year; and that therefore her psyer ought not to be complied with. The learned counsel admitting the general rule to be, that the ex- penses of proceedings at law between husband and wife were to be paid by the husband, contended, however, that where the wife had a separate property and estate secured to her, the case was different: and they relied, as authority for such exception to the rule, on se- veral cases reported in books of practice, viz. :-" Wilsoi v. Wil inn," (Consistory Court, 1797); and " Davis and Davis," (Arches, I789)-the first of them reported at length, the second adverted to inanote in2Haggard's Reports,203; also on " Fust v. Fust," (Consistorv, 1739); ' Ho:mjes v. flolmes," (Arches, 1755); and "Lady D'Aguilar v. Baron D'Rguilar," (Consistorv, 1794.) Sir CxtursTroprxs ROsssNSOS said be should take time so con- sult the authorities, and consider of his .iudgment. CONSISTORY COURT. MAY 1. anvan L1an -17rA