The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-14 00:00:00

BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQUIRE, JUDGE.

'PARRY V. BARNES.—JURY CASE.—LIABILITY OF lII7S-
BANDS.-,ln this case a jury was empanAled at the
suggestion of the court. Mr. Bremner appeared for the
plaintiff, who was a watchmaker and jeweller, having
offices in Castle-street, and Mr. Aspinall, instructed by
Mr. Hinie, appeared for the defendant. The question
involved related to the liability of a husband liVing apart
from his wife, for jewellery, watches, &e., ordered by her
from the plaintiff. Mr. Bremner, stated the case, from
which it appeared that the defendant, Mr. Barnes, was
a gentleman, having some independent property. and
not following any business. In the early part of March.
1855, Mrs. Barnes went to the establishment of plaintiff
and ordered from him a gold watch and chain, for which
she did not then pay. She subsequently got, other
articles of jewellery, incurring a debt; amounting in the
whole, to £414 15s, of which she subsequently paid to
plaintiff by instalments £l6 15s, leaving £2B due, which
was the amount claimed. On the 17th of May, 1856. a
deed of separation was drawn up between defendant and
his wife, and, on the 20th of May, defendant published
an advertisement in several Liverpool papers, stating
that, in consideration of an indemnity executed by a
trustee with hitn. relieving him of all responsibility as
to any debts which might hereafter be contracted by his
wife, he had secured to her a separate allowance for
maintenance commensurate to his means, and that
he would not- be liable for any debts contracted
by her hereafter. Mr. Bremner contended that
this advertisement would imply, as a natural
consequence, that parties from whom the lady
had contracted debts up to the time of the advertisement
appearing, might refer to Mr. Barnes to obtain payment.
He also stated that he should be able to prove that Mrs.
Barnes always wore the watch and jewellery openly and
before her husband--that her husband must have seen
them, and been aware that she had them—and that he
had even admitted having on one occasion wound up the
watch for her. These facts, Mr. Bremner argued, would
establish the " authority express or implied," which the
law at present required to render a husband liable for
debts of this nature contracted by his wife. Mr. Parry
was examined, and briefly deposed that Mrs 13arnes
came to his establishment, for the first time, in February
or March, 1855, when she gave him an order for a gold
watch and chain. She told him her husband was a
gentleman of independant means, but that she could not
pay him all at once, because Mr. Barnes only received
his money every quarter from the dock trust. Plaintiff
made enquiries, and found that her statements appeared
to be correct. He let her have the gold watch and chain,
and subsequently a second chain, which she said she was
about to give as a present to her mother ; an Albert
chain, as a present for her father; a cameo brooch ;
two sets of " charms," and other trinkets, amounting in
all to £44 1.55. Of this amount she paid by instalments
£2B. In answer to Mr. Aspinall, the plaintiff said he had
never known anything of Mrs. Barnes before the day she
called upon him ; never knew her as Miss O'Hanlon, or
that she kept a tobacconist's shop in Exchange-street
East. Several other witnesses were examined ; among the
rest, parties from the establishment of Messrs. Jeffery,
Morrish, and Co., Rogerson, Woodward, and Co., and
other establishments of a similar kind, to prove that Mrs.
Barnes had ordered and received goods for which pay-
ment was obtained on applying to Mr. Barnes through a
solicitor, or commencing proceedings against him. On
all the occasions of her visiting dim! establishments,
she wore, openly, a gold watch and chain, jewellery, s;c.
A female, in whose house Mr. and Mrs. Barnes bad
lodged, and several other parties, were also examined to
prove that Mrs. Barnes had been in the habit of wearing
the gold watch and chain at home and in the presence
of her husband. No evidence, however, was given as
to the alleged fact of the defendant having wound up
the watch, It appeared that Mrs. Barnes had also
incurred a considerable debt for jewellery and watches
to Mr. Quilliam, watch manufacturer, Mr. Hausburg,
and other parties in the same trade. Mr. Aspinall
addressed the jury for the defendant, contending that
Mr. Parry had been guilty of the most grievous negli-
gence in entrusting Mrs. Barnes with so much credit
without applying to her husband, and that it would be
a monstrous injustice to make Mr. Barnes responsible
for such extravagant expenditure, of which he knew
nothing, and which would never have been allowed to
exist but through the fault of Mr. Parry's carelessness.
Mr. Barnes was examined, and deposed that his income
was about £2OO, or at most, £215 per annum, which he
had had for about three years. He married his
wife, then a Miss O'Hanlon, in 1850. He was
then a few months over twenty years old, and
his wife might be about a year older. She had kept a
shop in Exchange-street East. Soon after her marriage
she took the benefit of the insolvent act, for debts
sums for
previously incurred by her. He was not aware that she
had any debts until after his marriage. He allowed her
house alone, and ho paid for clothes, rent, &c. About
year. She told him it belo d
tfirloen6it:loflOitsratyo, £1 17s per week for the support of the
1856, he first became aware of the debt
contracted with Mr. Parry, before he had the deed of
T
wound up the watr,l
separation drawn up. He then called upon Mr. Parry,
Cleaned, and
tjiaAFeineopairvdurtecinoolioldettie:
others.
eayit
tirsllhstii:ao.evytni‘phsrighr3irswisueia.nadatßuswasertannut
teershig:
withot wom e:
r. (Ice
torot in ni dicta, hbleelgris.nningof
ier
t it
owieitwhaisietro
exceptreturn Ilia thenge to
wil watch, and never saw a
uesday. On
1, but did not see
any maker's name, or Mrs. Barnes'
Did not know it was her o tlanle engraved on it.
debts she had incurred pon
that occasion. Paid several
he
was
advised to pay those for clothes, drapery, &c., because
watch that
debts and to resist the
jewellery demands. To Mr. Bremner : Mrs. Barnes was
arrested shortly after their marriage • she passed the
insolvent court at Chester, . m her
She petittoneo
married name. }Le was not summoned. Site was dis-
charged. Saw a cameo brooch with her once which she
told him she had borrowed from ner sister. Mr. Parry
told him lie would be very glad if he could get back

iii.aiimm...,,•mwam•,wmftwammmnro.=,•=Min

the watch. Does not recollect whether Mr. Parry
actually said he would not sue him if he got
back the watch.. Believes Mrs. Barnes was separated
from him at that time. Mrs. Barnes had asked him on
some occasions to bring her a gold watch, and he said
perhaps be would. , Never told her she must not buy a
gold watch. Paid 'altogether of hl debts £l3s—prin-
cipally debts for drapery goods, contracted at Messrs.
Jeffery, Morrish & Co.'s; Rogerson and Woodward's ;
the Liver establishment; Frisby, Dyke, & Co.'s; and
other establishments. Mr. Bremner replied for the
plaintiff His Honour charged the jury, submitting to
them the three following questions :—First. Whether the
goods in question were necessaries, that is, goods suited
to the ordinary requirements of the condition in life of
the defendant and his wife; second, Whether, if the
goods were suited to her condition, they were actually
wanted by her for the purposes to . which they were
applicable; and, thirdly, Whether she had any authority,
express or implied, from her husband, to purchase such
goods. After more than an hour's deliberation, the jury
found for the defendant on all the issues. His Honour
said, the verdict of the jury was precisely in accordance
with his own views.