APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



263 



heard against the wife of the last 

 defendant, in which the evidence 

 being precisely to the same effect, 

 Sir John NidJiull pionounced the 

 same sentence in all respects. 



Lady Brisco v. Sir lVa:>tel Brisco, 

 ban. — This was a question us 

 to the alimony to be allowed to 

 Lady Brisco during the depen- 

 dence of a suit instituted by her 

 against her husband. Sir Wast«i 

 Brisco, for a divorce on a chaige 

 of adultery 



The suit was commenced to- 

 wards the close of the year 1813. 

 The visual statement of the hus- 

 band's property, technically called 

 an allegation of faculties^ was 

 given in, as the first step in the 

 alimony question, in Hilary Term, 

 1814. Sir 'tVastel Brisco gave in 

 his answers not long afterwards, 

 to which some objections were 

 taken ; one of which, the want of 

 a sufficient specilication of the 

 value of a house and domain he 

 had in the country, was held suffi- 

 cient, and fuller answers were 

 decreed The further answers 

 were given in Michaelmas Tei'm 

 following ; and Sir Wastel then 

 estimated in them the net value 

 of the house and domain in ques- 

 tion at SfjOl. pei- annum. Lady 

 Brisco, on the conti ary, estimated 

 them at 2,0001. per aimum, and 

 produced two witnesses who cor- 

 roVjorited this opinion. It ap- 

 peared, houever, on their cross- 

 examination, that they were in 

 hostility to Sir Wastel Brisco, 

 were engiiged in lawsuits against 

 him, and had indicted his stewaid 

 for perjury ) but the grand jury 

 had thrown out the bill. The 

 witnesses, on the other hand, 

 pro<liiced by Sir Wastel Brisco, 



his steward and some farmers, 

 swore that, independently of the 

 house which, though desirable to 

 a gentleman, would oidy be an 

 encumbrance to a farmer, the 

 land would not let for more than 

 2501. per annum. The rest of 

 Sir Wastel Biisco's property was 

 evidenced principally by ids own 

 answers. It appeared to be near 

 3,0001. per annum, and Lady 

 Brisco had 2001. per annum pin- 

 money. It appeared, however, 

 that during the dependence of the 

 suit, demands had been made and 

 actions brouglit against Sir Was- 

 tel Brisco for debts of her lady- 

 ship's contracting for plate, linen, 

 a carriage, horses, &c. to the 

 amount of 1,4001. or 1,5001. be- 

 sides a sum of 2001. which had 

 been paid to her on account of 

 alimony. Affidavits on both sides, 

 with several letters annexed, were 

 given in explanation of these 

 items ; but the letters were re- 

 jected by the Court as inadmissi- 

 ble. The principal purport of the 

 admissible explanation was, that 

 Lady Brisco had been obliged to 

 incur many of these debts in con- 

 sequence of Sir Wastel having 

 burnt clothes of hers to the value 

 of above 2001. Sir Wastel, on 

 the contrary, denied that they 

 were worth more than lOl., arid 

 said, that he burnt them to in- 

 duce her to procure some other 

 clothes from the place where she 

 had left them. lady Brisco also 

 stated, that the carriage was or- 

 dered on her father's account, but 

 he had died before it was com- 

 jjleted, and ofi'ered to deliver up 

 to her husband a piano-forte, some 

 plate, and other articles, for which 

 the debts were incurred. 



Considerable discussion took 



place 



