
    
      Knight vs. Knight.
    " *OlLL by a man led woman for a separate maintenance, o» ae-count of the ill usage of the husband, and demurrer thereto, for that it was not brought by her prochein arnie.
    
    
      Plummer for the plaintif
    said, it had been the practice in this .court to institute ¿such suits’, ¡'.bout a prochein am;e; and he .cited two p.r.-cfl ’ • Hu»- • Hu .1 r r,~ II os. Sarto-., o IR .<• i-i, ¡:¡ Ni ■ ! .<■■!. : somecs-", v.pros,‘id.: ur,\ • had 1). :->! : • ;■ vs' ’\ier ti)*t b night >vv; vV. cop's : bu-. even th.' -, ti-- ; tie; had v Id, and mALótances, the wife had sued w.;i .m. o te. d >.t came ' vason for requiring a pro-chein amie did n •! -■ si..; :c this e ;r,r, since the act of Assembly making it necessary ior all persons to give security for costs before process can issue ; and that such security had been actually given in the present case, and to shew that the practice in England had been both ways, he cited 1 E. Ca. 67, which cites 1 Ch. C. 4 & C. 4.
   Thereupon the court, Moore and Haywood, over-ruled the demurrer, and ordered that the defendant answer.  