230 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1707.

      Lib. C. B.  2dly From former practice and presidents I am Credibly

           p. 99  Informed Your Exncys predecessrs have allowed Seperate

                  maintenance in the Court of Chancery in this province on

                  application of the abused feme.

                    3dIy A failure of Justice would otherwise be, because the

                  wife as tis well knowne hath no remedy in the Corts of Coinon

                  Law and there are no Spirituall Courts nor Iudges of them

                  here and therefore no suite could be here for Alimony and

                  Admitting that there were Spirituall Courts and Judges

                  thereof here in the principall Case there is not any Divorce

                  nor cause thereof without which the Judges of the Spirituall

                  Courts cann never allow Alymony i: Sidfn 115. wherefore

                  taking the Argument only a Necessitate & propter defect.

                  J ustitiae, She may well sue in the Chancery as hath been

                  allowed and Comonly practised in Case of such Nature and

                  that as well as for Legacies i Sidfn 119.

                    Lastly to Answer the forth Quer:

                    I allow that persons have been bayled on the returnes of

                  habeas Corpus at Comon Law who were Comitted by the

                  Lord Chancellr for Contempts or by order of the King and

                  Councill high Comrs Iudges of the Ecclesiasticall Court or

                  any other Courts in England but the reason thereof was

                  either because the Returnes of such habeas Corpus were too

                  Genll and uncertain as in the Case of Astwick Moores Repts

                  839 Vaughans Repts Bushells Case 2 Int. 52: 53: Apsleys Case

                  Moore 840, or the partys committing had no Jurisdiction of

                  the Cause; but illegally comitted or such causes were prop

                  erly cognizable at comon Law as in 5r Anthony Ropers Case

                   12: C: 46: 47 i Hughes, Ab: 447, 2 Bulstrodes Repts 300. 301

                  Bradshaw and the high Comission Courts case 1 Hughs 447,

          p. 100  but where the returne of a habeas Corpus is certaine and per

                  ticularly setts forth the cause of the Comittment and that the

                  Court or partys that Comitted the prisoner had Jurisdiction

                  of the Cause I never could find that they bayled him as in

                  the Case of one Wm Allen prisoner in the fleet being brought

                  to Court by habs Corpus and the Cause returned by the

                  Keeper that he was Comitted by the Lord Chanceller for a

                  Contempt in not pforming a Decree in the Court of Chanry

                  made against him the Court thereon refused to deliver him

                  Moores Repts 840, and the Earle of Shaftsburys Case Comit

                  ted by the Lords in parliamt to the Tower and thô. the

                  returne was Generally on his habeas Corpus for a Contempt

                  to the house because the Court of K: B: had no Jurisdiction

                  of the Cause he was remanded: i Mod, 114. one Maye was

                  Comitted by the Justices of the Quarter Sessions at Hartford

                  for Saying if I cant have Justice here ile Have it else where

                  for which he was fined five pounds he obtained his habeas