The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-07-11 00:00:00

NICE POINTS IN LAW.

In the Court of Queen's Bench the cause of
" Richardson v. Du Bois" has been tried, and was an
action to recover the balance of a builder's bill for
repairs and painting a house, the amount being LW 108.
The case was rather a singular one, and was stated also
to be a very painful one, as the following outline of it
will show : . _

It appeared that Mr. Du Bois had formerly been an eminent
proctor iii Doctor's Commons. When the Act for establidting
the Probate Court came into operation Mr. DII &Ai claimed
compensation, and was awarded £350 per annum; he was in
partnership with another gentleman, and they had a large
arid profitable business. At the latter end of the year 1505,
in consequence of overwork Mr. Flu Baia' ndnd gave way, and
he became a hopeless and incurable lunatic, and was removed
to an asylum. He hadipurchased and occupied a house in
Thurloe-square, London ; after his removal his wife aim three
children continued to reside in the house. In the early part
of 1807 Mrs. Dtt Bois thought the house required repairing
and painting, and she called in the plaintiff and asked him
to go over the house and make an estimate of the expense of
such repairs as might be necessary. The plaintiff prepared
an estimate and took it to Mrs. Du Bois, who said sin would
consult her husband's partner, and requested plaintiff to ,all
again in a week. The plaintiff accordingly called. :Ind Mrs.
Du Bois then gave ldin orders to commence the repairs. The
plaintiff anti his men then proceeded to the work. It Mal{
nit tor a month after this that the plaintiff became aware
that Mr. Du Bois was a lunatic. The plaintiff applied to
Mrs. Du Pois for sonic money on account, and she gave him
her check for COO. After the work was collo he e the plaintiff
sent in Ids loin, an trig to £ll7 105., to If Du Bois.
That lady died in February. turd the plaintiff then commenced
an action against Mr. On Bois.
The plaintiff and his workmen proved this state of facts,
and said the repairs ivere necessary. Mrs. On Bois had let
the house furnished.
For the defendant it was first urge 1 that the wife tens not
the agent for her husband ; that in two years she had re-
ceived a SIM of £2,219, consisting of the allowance in re-
spect of the Probate Court, anti sums kindly and voluntarily
allowed by Mr. Du Buis' partner ; and it was contended that
this sum was sufficient for the necesuiry expenses of the wife
and family of Mr. Du Bois, and for all necessary repairs to
the house. Although it might he a hard case fur the trades-
man, still it would be harder to take this money for an
uniteeetts: ry expense from the children of Mr. On Me.
Mr. Justice Ilannen, in summing up, observed that there
were several questions for the decision of the jury. This
gentleman's income had failed in consequence of his mental
incapacity, and his reduced income consisted of the 050
and some allowance from his partner. Between the latter
end of 1505 and the beginning of this year Mrs. On Bois had
been paid no less a sum than £2,219 for the support of her-
self and her children, and it was for the jury to say candidly
and fairly whether they vsulal find that that stun was not a
sufficient allowance for the lady and her children. whether
it was not an ample allowance for the wife to supply herself
end her children with all that was necessary and proper.
There was a further question, and he confessed the case was
one of difficulty—the house was part of the property or the
lunatic. The house might be more than was sufficient for
the wife after her altered circumstances, but then it could
not be got rid of in hot haste. She ntight have thought that
the husband would recover. She appeared to have
endeavoured te let it, and succeeded in doing so
within two years, but, if she was improperly living in the
house, remaining there longer than she ought to have done,
when she might have let it, the case was disposed of if the
£2,219 was a sufficient sum for her. Of course, if she could
have let the house without doing the repairs, she would have
had more money for her support. But there was this pos-
sible state of circumstances, that she might be desir. us of
letting the hon-e, anti had been unable to do so. Then
came the question whether she should have repaired the
house. lie would ask them this further question.— w hether
or not the Income she received was sufficient for all pur-
poses, whether it was not enotigh to cover everything, among
the rest any repairs that might be necessary to pit the house
In order bi let it ; whether that was not a suffiment min f,sr
her. Further, lie would ask this question,—whether the
repairs were in themselves right and proper to be done,
having regard to the state in which it was ; whether was a
right thing for her to do, whether they were rensonable and
proper to he done for the purpose of putting the house in
got al condition for making a profit. The question would be
whether or not that sum of £2,019 wns not amply sufficient
to defray all necessary expenses, having regard to the posi-
tion of this lady.
A juror : My Lord, is not the man to be paid?
he Judge said lie was glad the question had been asked,
because he must tell them that they must not consider whe-
ther lie would be paid or not. They must not allow them-
selves to lie swayed by the question whether he should be
paid or not
Another Juror: Then, if we find that was a sufficient sum
the tradesmaa will not have his money?
The Judge said they would fail in their duty if they
allowed that to influence them abates breadth.
The jury, having consulted for some time, said,
"We think the sum was sufficient; we think the
house wanted repairs, and that the plaintiffs charges
are reasonable. We think the wife was the agent of
the husbamL"
After some discussion the verdict wins entered for the
defendant, the Judge expressing no opinion; the
plaintiff to have leave to move.