Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-06 00:00:00

heivy,r:sx

itt3l::il Am-50.012)3er, butehdr,TSt, John's
ogileitm;) ozv hcavy,..1041.-
f),JosephmllartlieT,;igroodr; '..106; London-road, 40z. weight
4intier jiapnri s
previously
James

Market, hook on

le, 50,

Fined=thric

Telinstana
3:ing!(-9rtlsllAggrs9p49„ 107 ,11.ep.y,y, 59s

er, Limekiln-lane, nails and
ined four times

previously

William It.i.ramer, prOiision ~dealer, 47, Queen-street,
Edgoskill, weight unkr,sen4ig:inale, 1 oz. heavy,llos.
John pirkin, proviSion dealer; 4, Paddington, !scale 'lO
drachigilgaink pui=62ki,F; I
it g ooft,. 83, St. Jamey's-street,
gum lozenges under. seihrig,sesi I drachm heavy, 10s.
Mary Alexander', provision. dealer, 27, Mersey-street,
bacon ululdr selling. scale; 3 drachms heavy, 10s.
Mary Pye, gicengiocer, Gill-street Market, scab 7 oz.
heavy; 10-.

RPOOL COUNTY" QOURT.-YESTERDAY

DEPOD:O J. K. BLA,Ift:;;ESQ., JUDE

LIkBILITX OE A Itp;TIANI).:7,IyARMICIIAEL cq. v.
G. R.-li.oK,o24.—Thit was anAaetion brought to .yecover
the ftia oil £2S 3s. lld., forg4dS sold and delivered. The
plaintiff,„are the proprietors Of4he Liver establistßent,
Chureh.strcet,. and thJe:defendarstis a clerk in the employ of
Messra..-,Bahr,,Belweudirand,cog,ghipbrokers, in this town.
Mr. Groc.ott was! engaged' for' thc plaintiffs, and Mr..Hime
for the dafitidatit. A jtiry'wgel summoned to decide the
Xi...Grocott, opening4he case, said the sum in
ceestion a was a portion of MO, which was contracted,
by a femt..le calling herself Mrs. Parr, in the month
of, April, 1858. 'She resided at Oxton. It turned
out that sue was the Wife of '-the defendant. When
tho bill: :was furnished £l9 7s. -2d. was deducted fiom the
bill by Mrs. Parr, and she stated that that portion was got
sit account of her private house, which was in the name of
her son. It, appear that yr. Jackson -andihis wife were
apart. This. .fact was unknown by Messrs. Car-
mich7tel and Co: The question would be, first, whether
these goods were necessary for the wife of Mr. JaCkson,

arid" wh

EJrity t

with 31ei:

separation

btlsbapd

Jleerx:u,uklud andrevit

7
would renacrittsary, Tor "her peace am
leave hizni-then.,gte. had a right to leave h
husband waa bcitziato maintain her ; but if s

had gone

away in

len the liiisband's liabil

, -
end. He eould'only conclide that ite 'had left. from some
unkindneis, glat vrpre the ease; hielronour would.tell
the jury that'. the hUshatia was liable. Philip Doyle, .colleo-
ter in the,. eStabligiraent 'of the: plainqffS, was examined.
He stated:.that he furnished the -invoice to the lady, Who
gave her name as Parr.:"•She then told hilt that £2B was to
;be Charged to Mr. Jackson, her. husband, and She certifiedthe
portion which Mr. Jaasen.xas to pay. A carrier, named
O'Brien, proved the deliveryof . the. goods. Mr. Hime,
COminenting on the items of the' bill. said, that in one day
Mrs.:Pairlad ordered goods to the. amount of Als 6s Bd.
;He econterlded.. Ilia. Mr. Jackson ".was not liable, on the
• gronid that afthe time ehe ordered the goo& she was living
apart from her husband, and that-the goods were of a cha-
racter unsuited to her position as a 'Wife of the defendant,
.and were not.necessanes. INfotice4; also,' he said, had been
sent roufd.)3y the defendant's attorney cautioning the trades-
men from lupisi,ls hdr with,,,,ci•oods, as she was a very extrava-
gant woman. The udge said there was rio legal evidence of a
notice having been served on the plaintiff previons to the
debt being contracted. Mr. Jackson was called, and stated
that the cause -.Of the separation from his wife was, on
account of. her extravagance, her debts, and her temper.
She bad an income of . about £l5O- a-year from- property
settled;onlir by former husband. Re had given herabOut
£2OO since th3y separated.. They were married in 104 and
in 1855. they separated. They lived to get her about twelve
months: fAnOther witness' was called!' who pteroved, by a
deed of, settloinent, there' was . property to ti
41,875 settled upon Mrs. 'Jackson by her former Tivalsubeanc'df
In reply to a- Jttryniao,.it was stated- by the witnesses for
the: plaintiff that the goods were in the -name of Mrs. Parr
as She was net:known, in the. establishment by any other
name. She had bad a former account fn the ume.
The