The popular idea that a man may legally dispose of his wife, by exposing her for sale in a public market, may not improbably have arisen from the correlation of the terms _buying_ and _selling_. Your correspondent V. T. STERNBERG need not be reminded how almost universal was the custom among ancient nations of purchasing wives; and he will admit that it appears natural that the commodity which has been obtained "per aes et libram"--to use the phrase of the old Roman law touching matrimony--is transferable to another for a similar consideration, whenever it may have become useless or disagreeable to its original purchaser. However this may be, the custom is ancient, and moreover appears to have obtained, to some extent, among the higher orders of society. Of this an instance may be found in Grimaldi's _Origines Genealogicae_, pp. 22, 23. (London, 1828, 4to.) The deed, by which the transaction was sought to be legalised, runs as follows: "To all good Christians to whom this writ shall come, John de Camoys, son and heir of Sir Ralph de Camoys, greeting: Know me to have delivered, and yielded up of my own free will, to Sir William de Paynel, Knight, my wife Margaret de Camoys, daughter and heiress of Sir John de Gatesden; and likewise to have given and granted to the said Sir William, and to have made over and quit-claimed all goods and chattels which the said Margaret has or may have, or which I may claim in her right; so that neither I, nor any one in my name, shall at any time hereafter be able to claim any right to the said Margaret, or to her goods and chattels, or their pertinents. And I consent and grant, and by this writ declare, that the said Margaret shall abide and remain with the said Sir William during his pleasure. In witness of which I have placed my seal to this deed, before these witnesses: Thomas de Depeston, John de Ferrings, William de Icombe, Henry le Biroun, Stephen Chamberlayne, Walter le Blound, Gilbert de Batecumbe, Robert de Bosco, and others." This matter came under the cognisance of Parliament in 1302, when the grant was pronounced to be invalid. Now, we may fondly believe that this transaction, which occurred five hundred and fifty years ago, was characteristic alone of that dark and distant period, and that no parallel can be found in modern {603} times (at least in a decent class of society, and recognised by legal sanction) to justify the lively French dramatists in seizing upon it as a trait of modern English manners. A transaction, however, came before the public eye a month or two ago, which, should you think the following record of it worth preservation as a "curiosity of legal experience," may lead your readers to a different conclusion: