APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 255 



affairs, he omitted to state in his 

 answers debts and incumbrances, 

 the interest of which amounts to 

 1,760/. per annum, and that since 

 he gave in the answers he has 

 been under the necessity of 

 granting 7 other annuities to the 

 amount of 1,789/. per annum, by 

 all which embarrassments the legal 

 demands on his property exceed 

 his actual income." Tlie Court 

 is never in the habit of diminish- 

 ing alimony, unless it is clearly 

 shown that the diminution of the 

 husband's income is caused by 

 unavoidable misfortune ; and the 

 interests of the wife are not to 

 suffer from the extravagance or 

 imprudence of the husband. This 

 doctrine was recognized in the 

 case of Teuche v. Teuche, in the 

 Consistory Court, 1805, which 

 was afterwards appealed to the 

 Arches and Delegates, and af- 

 firmed by both. 



Drs. Arnold and Burnaby 

 urged, that it was competent to 

 Lord Kirkwall to give an expla- 

 nation of any error in his answers 

 by an affidavit. That he was 

 now in a very different situation 

 as to what he was when the 

 Court allotted alimony during 

 suit. His affairs had become 

 much more embarrassed, and his 

 means consequently reduced. 

 That Lady Kirkwall would not 

 be left destitute, inasmuch as she 

 had 400/. per annum secured to 

 her. In the case of Lord and 

 Lady Ferrers, the Court only 

 gave 600/. per annum, although 

 his lordship's income was 3,200/. 

 per annum ; and in this case it is 

 submitted, that the Court should 

 not grant any alimony beyond 

 the pin-money. 



Dr. Lushiiigton, in reply, ob- 



served, that the answers were 

 dated in July, 1816, in wliich 

 Lord Kirkwall stated his whole 

 income to amount to 3,100/. per 

 annum. Is it credible, that in 

 an income of that amount, he 

 could possibly forget debts, the 

 interest of which amount to 

 1,760/. per ann., and since the 

 date of the answers, he had grant- 

 ed annuities to the amount of 

 nearly 1,800/ per annum. That 

 he had no hesitation in saying, 

 that it was a most extraordinary 

 attempt to evade tlie justice of 

 the Court, and to deprive his wife 

 of that support which her rank 

 in life entitled her to demand. 

 In 1810, he allowed her 1,600/. 

 per annum. It may be true, that 

 his circumstances may now be 

 different, but by whose conduct 

 have they become different ? If 

 his lordship chose to waste his 

 property on not one but two 

 women at a time, and to grant 

 annuities to money-lenders, is 

 that a ground which would in- 

 duce the Court to deprive his 

 wife of a maintenance becoming 

 her rank. Where is the 20,000/. 

 whicli was raised on these an- 

 nuities ? His wife is entitled to be 

 alimentedfromthat; but the whole 

 statement contained in the affi- 

 davit is totally unworthy of credit. 

 Sir Wm. Scott stated the ques- 

 tion to be an application to the 

 Court to allot permanent alimony, 

 and an unusual opposition was 

 made to it on the ground of an 

 error in the answers, and a dimi- 

 nution of property since those 

 answers were given in. They 

 appear to have been drawn up 

 with a due attention to the state- 

 ment of all the facts, and Lady 

 Kirkwall has been willing to rest 



her 



