The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-07-17 00:00:00

WEYMOUTH COUNTY COURT.

The usual monthly aittinfg of this court was held on
Thursday last, before E. Everett, E.g., judge. There
were 59 cases in the cause list, two only of which were

defended.
SUINO A HUSBAND FOR RENT OWING BY THE WIFE.
aml others • . Hardy.—lt will be remembered
that this case was partly heard at the last court, when
it was adjourned for further evidence.—Mr. Arden ap-
peared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Howard for the de-
fendant.—The cause of adjournment was the proof of
the marriage of Hardy with Miss Squibb. The certi-
ficate of the marriage was now put to and admitted.
The action was brought for rent, alleged to have been
due by defendant's wife, and for which he therefore
was liable.—Richard Squibb, father of Mrs. Hardy, said
that he took the stables, and had been in possession of
them ever since, and that defendant had nothing to do
with them. He had underlet them to Mrs. Bridle, and
had informed Mr. Bulgin he had nothing to du with
the etables ; what he did was in his own naino.—Mr.
Arden produced an agreement signed by Mr. Hardy,
and stated that be had always paid the rent.—Squitib
did not recognise his daughter's handwriting, who he
said, could nut write well. The plaintiff would not take
him (Squib) as a tenant.—A receipt was produced,
signed by Mrs. Henley, use of the plaintiffs, which pur-
ported to have received balance of rent, Li, from
Richard Squibb, on bllay 14th, 1859.—The Judge said
it was rather remarkable the wife, Eliza Hardy, had
not been called.—Mr. Howard said defendant and his
wife were separated, consequently she was not called.—
Time Judge remarked that that would account for a
great deal of the evidence before thew. The absence of
so material a witness was • very important feature in
the case. The plaintiff, Bulgin, proved that when a
settlement wu mule for milk, Ise., and rent, it was
made by Mies Squibb, who signed • receipt now pro-
duced. He found afterwards she was Mrs. Hardy,
although he did not know it at the time. There was a
balance of £2 12s. 6,1., which stood over. That was in
1858.—Williani Hardy, defendant, wu then called, and
stated he had kept livery stables for two year. in King-
street, where he had. plenty of room. Heard nothing
of the other stables till about 12 months ago. Married
Eliza Squibb in 1857. Never made use of the stables.
Never had any of theiroceeth of the milk sold bySquibb,
who kept cows there.- His Honor said nothing could be
recovered that was due before marriage ; what was due
subsequently stood in a very different light.—Defendant
in his examination proceeded to say that he never paid
any rent for the stables, and did know that his wife had.
His wife had misdated her father in his business. Had
separated from his wife since March 1859. Had no use
of the stable since 1859. Cross-examined : Had not
been obliged to pay any of his wife's debts billed her
marriage. Paid Mr. Hill kJ, which was • debt partly
contracted by his present wife and his children. Had
never been asked for the rent by Mr. Buglin previous
to an application made by Mr. Arden. His wife did go
by her maiden name after she was married. Sims lived
in his house altlipugh she helped to carry on her father's
business. Had never admitted he was liable to pay the
rent. Said he would go before the court, and if the
Judge found him liable he must pay it.—lte-examined :
Meant by her assisting her father, that she drove and
rode his horses, and helped take out the milk. His
wife left him and went to live with her father and
mother. He Wan obliged, in consequence, to break up
his house, his happiness, and his home.—The plaintiff.
Buglin was recalled, and questioned as to the receipt.
He could not recollect if the balance. LI 12s. 6d., was
paid to him.—The Judge said after the evidence of this
witness he could not be got to believe that Mrs. Hardy
could not write well.—Plaintiff, being further ques-
tioned, said he hail no doubt as to the identity of the
person he supposed was Miss Squibb, alias Mrs. Hardy.
He knew her well and hail seen her many times. Did
not know her sister—lsabella Dodge (the sister) was
then called—Plaintiff said he was not the person who
signed the receipt in question.—The witness being
sworn, said she always kept her father's accounts since
she was 12 years of age. She could reed and write.
Eliza Squibb, or Hardy, was her half sister. The
receipt was handed to the witness, who stated it was in
her sister's handwriting. The business is her father's.
Her father rented the stable. Defendant never used it
or paid any rent. When the settlement took
place, her father told Bulgin his daughter bail nothing
to do with taking the stable. Had taken rent for the
stables from her father to the plaintiffs.—Croo-
examined : In making out the bills she sometimes put
E. Squibb instead of It. Squibb. Elizabeth was her
mother's name, and sometimes she put the initials of
that name. Mt. Howard said as to the occupancy since
March, 185.9, that could be got rid off, because defen-
dant's wife having left her husband against his consent,
he was not liable for what she had done during the
separation.—The Judge said that was a serious point.
The question WAS whether any means had been taken to
induce her return. Was it by mutual consent they had
separated ?—Mr. Howard said that was by no means the
ease—After the evidence was closed, Mr. Arden pro-
duced an agreement, signed by defendant's wife, which
was not stainped.—ln regard to this, his Honor said if
it had been produced in evidence the plaintiff must be
nonsuited ; but, as it was not known to be in existence,
they had got through their case without it. The rule
was, if a party could get through his case, and any-
thing afterwards turned up, it would not operate agaiust
him. The only question was, as plaintiff brought it out,
could defendant use it against him.—Mr. Arden said
MOTS 1104 Imo.. .• veva.. sottleonant .11/1,5 dat• nf
the document alluded to. This was only an agree-
ment for one year. —The Judge remarked that the
agreement would be hi ding afterwards.—Mr. Arden
urged that there had been • new letting since, and
fresh quarter day's arranged.—The Judge: You could
not without the consent of the defendant make such an
alteratior. as that' When was it altered I—Mr. Arden :
011 January 22, 1858, when the settlement was made.
It was arranged that the rent should be payable on the
regular quarter days, commencing from December
25th, 1857.—The Judge said there was no evidence of •
fresh letting; the time of the payment of rent would
not constitute that.—Mr. Arden contended that the
parties agreed there should be a new letting.—Mr.
Howard said the agreement, if it were sent, was given
without the husband's conaent, which in law was
required in order to constitute the wife an agent of her
husband.—The Judge agreed with Mr. Howard; it was
necessary to prove the agency of the husband. He did
not think there was say pretence to eity the agreement
was altered. The year under the agreement ended
August 30th, 1857. and therefore the next year's rent
would have commenced, and become due, because
nothing had been dune up to January 29th to alter the
tenancy some mooths after the year had commenced.—
Mr. Anhui said it was so stated in the particulars which
had not been disputed by the defendants. The Judge :
If the mere payment of cash ie to constitute • new
agreement, you have • very bad Pie. Mr. Anion
contended that • portion of this rent having accrued
while the defendant and his wife were living together,
he WAS clearly liable for the rent during that time.—The
Judge thought this point could be entertained, because
if they were living together the supposition was, that
that the defendant received the profits of the business.—
Mr. Howard said if the defendant was liable for the rent
during the time of cohabitation, then, likewise, he was
entitled to the benefit of the amount that was paid on
account during that time. —His Honor thought that
was but fair, and quoted a ease in point. The question
then was, how lung did they cohabit.—The defendant
was not liable for the quarter that was commenced at the
time oh marriage, but he we., liable for the quarter cote-
meneed at the time of separation.—Mr. Arden said the
separation took place in March, according to the evidence
of defendant himself, but Mr. Howard said the defen-
dant's evidence on that point was not correct. The sister
was correct when she said it was in February.--His
Honor ?aid the husband ought to know best when the
separati m took place, but as there seemed to be • doubt
on that point, the defendant must, of course, receive the
benefit of that doubt. The amount owing, then, for the
time during which they cohabited, was mine year'. rent,
ten guineas. The question then was, how much had
been paid on account during that time.—Mr. Howard
showed that there was a balance of £1 2e. 61., and two
sums amounting to Li 6s. paid during the year, heav-
ing a balance of £2 4s. due to the pleintiff.—His
Honor, in summing up, said, that he could only give •
verdict for this Izabal,* of LI 45., but the plaintiff
had, besides, this important admission by the evidence
adduced, that the wife was responsible for the remaining
portion of the amount alleged to be due.—Judgment
was accordingly given for £2 4.. end costs.