APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



S95 



suffered with impunity to live in a 

 6tate of open profligacy, and en- 

 graft a spurious issue upon the 

 property of the lunatic husband : 

 this would be j.dmitting that there 

 exists a wrong, for which it is 

 impossible to apply n remedy ; a 

 proposition which no system of 

 juris}.rudence, however imperfect, 

 wUI distinctly recognize. The 

 situation of a lunatic is such as to 

 call for redress of injuries more 

 urgently than any other. If, tlien, 

 he has the right w hich has been 

 claimed, and which the Court is 

 of opinion that he has in tlie pre- 

 sent instance, tlie only remaining 

 question is, by what means it is to 

 be enforced; and to this the an- 

 svver seems obvious, that it must 

 be bv the same means by which 

 his other riafhts are protected — the 

 agenc}' ot his committee ; to hnii 

 is committed the general power of 

 protecting the person, the estates, 

 and tlie personal property of the 

 lunatic ; and the injury which 

 either or all of these might sus- 

 tain, by the wife's course of life, is 

 sufficient to justify the present 

 proceeding. It is true, instances 

 have occurred where the commit- 

 tee has applied to the Court of 

 Chancery for directions as to the 

 commencement of any legal pro- 

 ceeding ; but this is only where 

 the propriety of such a proceeding 

 is at all doubtful; and in which 

 case, the committee, who is only 

 the substitute of the Lord Chan- 

 cellor, does well to resort to him, 

 as the legal protector of all luna- 

 tics s'nd infants, for directions. 

 This Court, however, has no such 

 protecting power, and can only 

 decide upon the matter at issue 

 between parties, according to the 

 rules laid down by its law and 



practice. Upon the question of 

 analogy, the case seems equally 

 clear; in other cases of legal im- 

 becility of mind, such as th;;t of 

 infants, &c. their guardians have 

 the power of bringing suits even 

 to the dissolution of the impoitant 

 contract of matrimony. Upon 

 each consideration, t'lerefore, it 

 appears clear that the lunatic has 

 the right, by his committee, of ask- 

 ing for a sentence of this Court, so 

 materially afl'ecting his own and 

 his children's interests; and, there- 

 fore, the libel now oflered for that 

 purpose is admissible to proof. — 

 Admitted accordingly. 



Consistory Court, Doctors'' Com- 

 mons. 



Foulkes against Foulkes, — This 

 was an application to the Court 

 for an augmentation of the ali- 

 mony allotted to Philippa, the wife 

 of Mr. John Foulkes, solicitor,, on 

 her obtaining a sentence of divorce 

 bv reason of cruelty and adul- 

 tery, and it was founded on the 

 fact of an increase in the hus- 

 band's income since the sentence. 



It appeared that the divorce 

 was pronounced for in December 



1802. At that time Mr. Foulkes's 

 income arose principally from his 

 practice as a solicitor ; and the 

 Court, under all the circumstances 

 of the case, had allotted to the 

 wife 150/. per annum, conceiving 

 that sum, with reference to the 

 husband's circumstances, to be as 

 much as was necessary for her 

 support in the decent state of re- 

 tirement in which it was to be 

 presumed she would live, under 

 her peculiar situation. Upon the 

 death of Mrs. Foulkes's mother in 



1803, Mr. Foulkes succeeded, in 

 right of his wife, under his mar- 



