The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-02 00:00:00

t.

• LAIP' INTELI,IGE-VCE.
counT ow CHANCERY, TritonsT, Fes. 1.
to teßvence to the mere of " llnsband r. Braekenbnen," argued
an a previous defy, the LORD CHANCELLOR, after taking his seat,
..tronted, that he bait made up his mind, but subsequent to the de-
cisioo he bad been so much ocespied with other things, that h•
soaldnot paw enter fully and clearly into the grounds of that de-
sision; ha had therefore determined to postpone the remarks he '
intended to' male upon the case, until the sitting of the Court on
Friday.
lathe ease of " Watson v. 31**," argued on a former day, the
Loin CHANCELLOR slid, the juilgoicut must be altered in seve-
ral important particulars.
.HART applied to the Court for an injunction to stay pro-
seed it, In an action brought by Mr. Exton, jun. and others,
aptabitt lYafter Scott and Richard Jones, administrators of Leo-
nard Hanson, deceased. The cue was brought before hie honour
*e Vice-Chancellor. who refused the injunction, in deference to a
Ratner decision of his Lordship, which, lie. hart contended. RSA
not it. point. The plaintiffs at law were bond creditors of Hanson;
the bill was filed for general administration, and it was necessary
Me defendants at law should plead something. They had put in
several pleas, which were afterwards expunged, and were therefore
immaterial, but the plea standing on the record was Flew sdoiiiis-
sravif. The action was brought in Michaeln.se Term 1824, and
fa. bill was filed on the 9th November. The defendants were
ander the necessity of pleading on the 16th November, and the de-
arse was made on the 20th of the same month.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Was any thing done between the
lißh hid 20th November ?
hie HART—Nothing, my Lord; and on the 22d November re.
stater notice was served on the plaintiff's that the decree had been
.Dmtneed, but plaintiffs did not stay proceedings. A rule had
MO laid down, that when executors applied to obtrin a decree, to
collusion to the damage of creditors, the person making
=itantlon should put in an affidavit stating the amount of assets.
Tlmsdefandants, in order to enable the Court to act upon the assets,
had put in an affidavit, admitting that they had property belonging
xi the testator to the amount of 1,681!. Upon these farts, the
ines-Chaneellor refused the injunction, holding, that as the plea of
phase administriroit was false, as proved by the affidavit of defend.
ants, stating that some assets remained in their hands, the defend-
sets were liable de bank propriis. This decision his Honour the
inee-Chanrellor conceived to be founded on the case of " Terse-
MST v. Fetherhy (2 Mere. p. 48(v), in 'which he understood his
idtesiship to decide, that if the plea could be falsified, the Court
wooed not restrain the plaintiffs from seeking their remedy at law.
Mr. Hart contended that this decision of his Lordship could not
ship to the present case. The defendants had only pleaded
WS* administravit pro tempore, and to prevent the plaintiff!' from
wanting in as judgment creditors. They were obliged to make this
Fres, to prevent the plaintiffs from obtaining judgment. The
Midavit was considered as evidence to falsify the plea de facto
bat though the falsity of the plea should be proved, it gave no
right to the plaintiffi, except de bonis tettatto es for the debt, and
dahlmis propriis for the costs or damages. Mr. Hart quoted Term
Reports, vel. 3, p. 685, and concluded by submitting, that as the
athninistrators come forward bona fide, ready to pay in the assets,
and without an intention of keeping back any part of the effects,
the Court was bound to grant them protection by an injunction.
Mr. Rosa followed Mr. HART on the same side.
'Mr. &rant N contended, that as the administrators had pursued
tomato tine of conduct, they were bound to meet the consequences.
Tarte were several other pleas besides that which now appeared on
silt Veered; roe rst fortem wrs pleaded ; it was also pleaded that
the bond held by the plaintiffs was executed on a Sunday by the
airator, as a banker, m the way of his business. A third plea
wts that another action was pending. The defendants went to the
Ridge of a Court of Law to have these pleas expunged, and now
ttiey came into Court and modestly desired his lordship to over-
ten the authorities which were against them, and to stop the pro-
otrodirrgs in a Court of Law, which would decide whether the judg-
Mai% should be de bottis lestatoris or de Janis propriir.
• Tice LORD CHANCELLOR—The difficulty is, that the Court
• Taw will not like to notice our proceedings here; they do
Oat observe the same courtesy towards us that we do towards them.
S CCDEN resumed—Formerly, if an executor pleaded piece
oinctlatrarit, and the smallest amount of assets was proved to re-
nnin! in his possession, the creditor got judgment against the exe-
cutor for the full amount of his debt. Such was the law until the
tithe of Lord Mansfield, and his Lordship, in a way which he (Mr.
Ougden) could not approve, after consulting with the other Judges',
determined that die law should not s:and es it had done before, but
that the executor, after pleading pierce administravit, should only
be liable fur the amount of assets in his possession. Without bit-
poaching the wisdom of this decision, which was afterwards rung-
ailed by Lord Kenyon, he thought Lord Mansfield, by. exercising
this jurisdiction, had gone beyond the spirit of the Constttution. It
laos legislating rather than expounding the laws, and if a Judge
mold thus alter or amend established laws, no man could be sure
*am one day to another what were the laws of England. In the
ease now before the Court, the plain tiffs adopted the decision of Lord
Mansfield, and admitted, that although the defendants had pleaded
Mleely, they were only liable to the extent of the assets. The de-
fendants had placed themselves in difficulties; they conducted
themselves improperly in the Courts of Law, and now came into a
Coon of Equity to protect themselves against the consequences of
their own acts. Mr. Hart had stated that the defendants pleaded
One edniinistravit, only to prevent the plaintiffs from claiming as
judgment creditors. Could not the defendants have suffered judg-
Mint to go by default, and have confided in the justice of a Court
sof Equity ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, this was not a question be-
nee* the executors and particular creditors, but between the ese-
anon and all the creditors. Ile was by no means satisfied, that if
the assets were lodged in Court he could admit those assets to be
qpiled to satisfy any particular creditors. In justice to the Vice-
Chancellor he would say, that if he (the Vice-Chancellor) had done
Gnaw, upon which he did not now mean to pronounce, the Vice-
+Chance:los had been led astray by him.
Ik. Snow:is—Yes, my Lord, he has exactly followed your
.11Pwdship's judgment.
• HART—No.
BIT. SUODEN-1 am obliged to my Learned Friend; he says
:His Vice-Chancellor did not follow your Lordship's judgment, then
Ili must have added the weight of his judgment to that of your

has mistaken his Lord•

lordship.
Mr. HART—I say the
Ilitp's opinion.
r. I
quoted a variety of cases, which he considered in point against the
opplication.
?he LORD CHANCELLOR Said, the Court cannot take it for
granted that the judgment will be de bolas propriis, therefore
the argument on this presumption is beside the case.
Mr. SCGDE N—We take that at our peril.
LORD CHANCELLOR—I shall meet the Judges in the Ex-
chequer Chamber by and by, and see what they think of the
point. After this argument shall have concluded, I hope we
shall hear no more in the Court of King's Bench of their
bow pleat.
Mr. lIART briefly replied to the arguments of Messrs. SUODEN
and BARBER.
The lon u CHANCELLOR Slid, that though the Courts of Law
rald not take the same notice of the judgments in equity, which the
Quarts of Equity took of the judgments in law, yet the Court was
►sand to protect its own judgments. The Court had no difficulty
is deciding, that if the creditor in law had got judgment prior to a
decree in equity, and thought proper to struggle with the difficul-
ties, the Court ought not to prevent him from so doing. lie had
Ito disposition to quarrel with former decisions; at the same time,
Ala felt no hesitation in admitting that, in the case which had been
.i*sled, where while adminisfraeit was falsely pleaded, and tile
temreel for the defendants fell in with the views of the opposite
Counsel, he bad been induced to agree with what he conceived the
fishes of both parties, without sufficieet consideration. Baring
said so much, in reference to the case at present before the Court,
he wished it to be naderstood that he was fully competent in equity
to decide upon points of law. It was quite within his authority to
decide questions of law; and, if three Justices ea: in the Court to
waist the Chancellor, the judgment would be that of the Chancel-
abr. Be thought it right to make those remarks, as it appeared
that, in Court. of Law, the decisione on law made in this Court
were accounted as nothing. In his opinion, this was a gross mis-
Wu: of the constitution of the Court of Chancery. Something had
hese said of those g►eat and illustrious men, Lord Mansfield and
Lord Kenyon, and, as he was much older than those gentlemen
. be had the honour of addressing, he might be allowed to repeat to
them an anecdote of what bad occurred many years ago. Lord
Mansfield had said, that he never liked equity so well as when it
was like law. Mr. Justice De Grey shortly after took occasion to
say, that he never liked law so well as when it was like equity.—
These two strong expressions were mentioned- to Lord Titurlow,
„sad his Lordship, when co:nmenting upon them, observed, that
law and equity were never no good as when they were not confounded
the one with the other. To return to the case, he would only ob-
serve, that at present he saw no reason why it should go to a trial,
When the fact might be ascertained without burthening the parties
with so heavy an expense.
Judgment deferred.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Fs.. 1.
H$ Hattons was occupied the whole of the day in hearing
srgumenu on causes of no public importance.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, WZSTKOISTSII.
TUESDAY, 71111. 1.

DIONTAOUE v. ZXPINAISE.
This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the
Middlesex Sittings after last Trinity Term. It was Droned by
--its* plaintiff, who Is a working jeweller, to recover tl:e awn of
- 3a., being the balance of a sum of 83!. 35., the amount of
7.4eweltery furnished by him to the wife of the defendant, who is an
joins:it special pleader in the Temple. The defence at the trial
yrs, that the credit had not been given to the defendant, ror any
'wothority granted by hint for the purchase of the goode, which not
...being articles necessary to the wife, he was therefore not liable fey
ypeir amount. On the part of the plaintiff it was contended, that
• se the goods had been fnrnished to the defendant's wife, and which
, wets not unbecoming, or in any manner unsuitable to a ivir fn her
altitetion is life; and as thee were moreover delivered.. yrred at the defend
t shouts: openly, ant without any secret or clandestine means
deg wad, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover. The Lord
Lc NMI tlatief staid he should not comsat/ the plaintiff, but leave it
So the Jury to say, first, whether the goods had been supplied to
lbe wife of the defendant ; secondly, whether 'they were suitable
W lee creditlon and rank; and thirdly, whether so or not they
Wes Aunishad with the expressed or implied assent of the defend-

,rt-a.-•-~-~

ant. The Jury, after au hour and a half's consideration, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 4W. Ss. On the first day of last
Term Mr. fluency obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a non-suit en-
tered, or a rcw trial granted.
Mr. PLATT now showed cause against the rule. In doing so, he
shout I, with all humility, cunterd that the question involved in
this MSC was a proper one for a Jury. The question was, whether
the goods were supplied to Mrs. Repinasste, and whether they had
been supplied to her with the defendant's knowledge ? That the
goods had been supplied "tit this lady had been clearly proved ; no
doubt, he thought, could row be entertained upon that point ; but
it had been said that they woe furnished to her without her hue-
band's knowledge, that they were unnecessary articles, and not
suited to the rank and station of the defendant's wife, and that there-
fore he wee not liable for their value to the plaintiff: But the hus-
band wee surely answerable for the appearances which he held out
to the world, either in his own person or in those of his family. He
, lived in a respectable part of the town, kept his house at Twicken-
ham, kept three or four servants ; he was known to be a very emi-
-1 nent man in his profession, and his lady war related to persons of
rank and station in society ; all then things brepoke a respectabi-
lity by no means inadequate to the rapport of these appendages of
personal on:einem for which the present action was brought. 11,
then. the defendant was answerable for these appearances, the ver-
dict
[ that bad been given by the Jury was right, and ought not to
be disturbed. Much had been said anent the absence of proof that the
defendant had assented to these purchases being made, but he would
contend that no assent onthe part of the husband wasneceseary in this
case ; that the Jury had ascertained and determined by their verdict
that the articles were proper for a person filling that station in lies
which the defendant did, and that therefore the defendant washable,
whether he assented or not. Great stress was laid at thetrial swe
the circumstanee that the plaintiff had not proved that thus
goods were worn in the prennee of the husband, or that he
in any way knew of their having been had by his lady : on the
contrary, at was said, that every effort was made by the lady her-
self to secrete the articles she had obtained front his client, le
keep the fact cf her possessing them altogether unknown frees
husband, aril the Learned Judge gave the defendant all the
of that objection ; his Lordship told the Jury that unless the
articles furnished were necessary to the wife of the defendant, ha
was not liable without an expressed or implied patent ; but that the
husband was bound fir goods supplied to the wife where the,
appeared proper for her to have, without any consent on his pant
being proved. It was quite plain, then, from these cireeesseeedos
that the question of suitability of the articles supplied by the
plaintiff to toe degree of the person to whom they were furnished
Was pointed nut to the Jury fur their consideration ; then, If it
were so, could the plaintiff be called upon to prove that she woes
them ? a fact which could only be known to the inmates of the
defendant's house, and which the plaintiff under no cirossestaftwe
could hardly be presumed to have a knowledge of. Beddow, then
were articles that even 00 servants of the house might pot have
seen worn by the lady, being attired only for occasions "No such
individuals were not often required to present. lint supPeee Mrs. I
Espinasse never did wear them, suppose she had them new in her
possession in the same virgin state in which they had been deli-
vered to her, without having once been exhibited to the gaze of the
fashionable rout, or the gay circle of a tea party, surely the circum-
stance of the husband being responsible were the same ; this fact
could not alter the grounds of bin liability.. Ile was a member of
a respectable profession, of extensive practice, lived in a :.boat re-
spectable house, and maintained an appearance of opulence ; the
plaintiff toms in the course of his business to dispose of his goods
In open day, he enters at the front of the house, not clandestinely
at the back ; be is not called into a back room, and cautioned by
the lady to he secret, and careful rot to suffer her husband to know
of the purchase she is making ; he sells his goods openly, every
thing appears about her to bear the stamp of respectability, and
he goes away under the impression that he has been giving the
defendant himself credit for the goods he has thus sold to his lady;
and although he might afterwards, upon learning. that this was not
the case, that the husbund did not know of the circumstance, con-
sent to accept of a lens sum for the articles than originally agreed
upon, still that did not alter the original liability of the defendant.
He would now call their Lordships' attention to a case which
appeared to him to bear a strict analogy to the present. It was the
case of Morton and Withens, Skinner's Reports, p. 348. The
defendant, in that case, was Sir Francis Withens, Sergeant at Law,
and had lately been Justice of the King's Bench. The action was
brought for silver fringes and lace for a petticoat and side saddle,
purchased within a period of four morahs.amounting to 93/., by the
wife of Sir Francis. It was insisted on behalf of the defendant,
shat long before the delivery of the goods he and his wife had not
lived together, and that the wife had declared to him that she
would charge him with 5001. in one term, and have him in a gaol
in the next. That for many years she had had as allowance
of fifty pounds per annum, and that no evidence had been
given to show that these things were necessary; and on the sante
day another action was tried against the defendant for velvet and
tissues at M. ;per yard, to the value of 801. The Judge who tried
the cause directed, that, if the Jury found the plaintiff innocent of
the design of the wife to ruin her husband, and delivered the laces,
de. as goods fit for the wife and upon the credit of the husband.
without notice of the difference between them, that the husband
should be obliged to pay the plaintiff, for it was part of his promise
of marriage to feed and clothe her, and notwithstanding she had an
allowance, the plaintiff win entitled to a verdict, for that allowance
was secret, and not known to the plaintiff; but if the plaintiff
knew of the differences between the husband and wife, and sold his
goods only to enable the wire to ruin the husband, then the de-
fendant would not be chargeable ; nor would he be, if the things
were not suitable to the quality of the wife. Upon this direction,
the Jury being of e tallow», Wad a verdict for the plaintiff. In
the present, said Mr. Platt, the Jury, also being of gentlemen,
found that Mrs. Espinasse was of a suitable degree to have these
things supplied to her, and the verdict of the Jury was so strongly
supported by the ease he had cited, that it was impossible to con-
ceive in what manner it could be impugned. It often happened
that in cases where parties applied for a new trial, the merits of
their case had either not been fully entered into, owing to tome
omission on their parts, or else new evidence, which was not at the
time of the trial known to them, had since transpired ; but would it
appear that there was any thing here that would alter the case of
the defendant? had any new facts been discovered that could favour
hint or be prejudicial to the plaintiff?—nothing of the sort had
been attempted to be shown ; and he therefore hoped, as the Jury
had had all the facts fully left to them by the Learned Judge, and
they had, upon due deliberation, decided that the defendant ought
to pay for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to Mrs. Espinasse,
that their Lordships would not now disturb that verdict, but dis-
charge the rule with costs.
Mr. SCantl TT appeared to support the rule, and said he had
not been engaged at the trial, but Iroun what he had learned of the
case from the papers before him, and from his Learned Friend Mr.
Platt's speech, lie was certainly of opinion that the verdict ought to
be set aside and a nonsuit entered. A case had been quoted from
Skinner, where a Sergeant-at-Law had been made to pay for a vel-
vet petticoat and a aide-saddle which had been furnished to his wife,
upon the ground that they were suitable to her rank and dignity,
and this verdict Navin; been given by a Jury, being. of gentlemen,
the present Jury thought that the defendant in this action, being an
eminent special pleader, could also maintain his wife in equal dig.
nity with a Sergeant-at-Law. But their Lordships were much
better able to judge what was the difference between a sergeant-at-
law and a special pleader under the bar. His Learned Friend had
said a great deal about 31r: Espinasse's rank and family connec.
tiara, but the question was, what was Mr. Espinasse's rank ?
Was it of that description which could afford to support a wife in
displaying such a-ticles of value so those for which this action had
been brought ? Certainly not ; for it appeared that the defendant's
practice was not of a very extensive nature ; and even if it were,
the pay was but very trifling and uncertain. As to the country-
house, which it was said he kept, it was trite he had rented a small
house for two or three months at Twickenham ; but in general his
mode of living was not ostentatious, orealculated in any way to hold
out inducements to tradesmen to believe him responsible for debts
contracted for so large an amount as the present, for such 'descrip-
tion of goods as those furnished by the plaintiff: There was one
circumstance in this case which made it very peculiar, which was,
that Mrs. Espinasse's maid never saw the jewels ; this was cer-
tainly rather extraordinary, foe one would naturally suppose that
a person who was always necessarily about the house in which the
lady lived would have seen these articles if they had ever been
worn ; there must then have been some motive for not wearing
them, and what other motive could be assigned but that of wishing
to conceal the fact of her possessing these jewels from her husband ?
His Learned Friend had said mach upon theliability of a husband to
pay for goods furnished to the wife, and urged this as a law which
would pr erne facie charge the husband in thus case ; but the law
was quite the other way. This kind of action, which was brought
against the husband, was an exception to the general rule, for the
general rule was, that the wife could not bind her husband ; and it
was only in the particular case where the law was anxious to pro-
tect the wife from any undue or severe exercise of his rights, on the
part of the husband, that it gave the wife a right to contract debit
so as to render the husband liable. But if this power were not
confined, as it very wisely was, to the contracting of debts
fur things that were necessary
.for the comfort and convenience
of the wife, suitable to her station in life, there would be a most
dangerous means allowed to be within the reach of any woman who
regarded her own fancies in preference to the welfare and happiness
of her husband, to bring down ruin upon him, without any redress
whatever tieing left to the husband against those who conspired
with his wite to effect it. It was very true that gentlemen of the
profession had their time much occupied, and Mr. Espinasse's pur-
*llia were such as called him much from borne, so that it might be
said by the plaintiff that in dealing with the wife he was only dealing
'with her because the husband was necessarily absent on the duties
of his profession ; but the plaintiff ought to have known something
icif the defendant and Ids circumstances ; he was a gentleman very
well known to others, and a small degree of caution on the part of
On plaintiff' wouhl have sufficiently convinced hint that the tuns.
actinss which he was carrying on with his lady were not warranted
by the defendant's cirrionstences. One fact was clear, that he had
not received any money from the defendant on account of these or
any other things furnished by him to Mrs. Eminent.
The Lotto Camp JvsTICIC—It appears by his own proof that
he received some of the money from Mrs. Espinarse hiniself.
Mr. PLaTT—That was after the supply of the goods.
Mr. ScARLETW—SO much the worse for him ; for it appeared
by that fact, that he had been supplying goods to the wife upon
Per own credit, unknown to the husband: but no person would sup•
ply any articles of value to a lady front whom he knew he could MI
legally reeoverpheir amount, without first obtaining the assent of the
husband, unless be knew that the things he was supplying were
such as no husband in the defendant's circumstances would sane-
bun his wife to have. This was, in fact, the precise ease of tbS
plaintiff in the present action s he knew that it was wrong to
furnish these jewels, and therefore he did not apply to the defend-
ant himself; but relied upon the lady to pay him ; sod if not, then ,

THE BRITISH PRESS.

he considered the law would make the husband responsible. But
he (Mr. Scarlett) trusted that would not be the case; for if the
plaintiff succeeded in this action, it was to be apprehended that
it would produce the ruin of Mr. Espinasse; for there was great
reason to believe that these things were not boueht by Mrs. Espi-
nasse fur the purpose of being woei by herself, out to accommodate
a friend ; and that many other actiods of a s:inilar nature would,
if this should be euceeesful, immediately follow. He should there-
fore hope that their Lordships woOf direct a nonsuit, or, at all
entente; make the rule absolute for sneer trial.
Their LON mu es conferred together a short time, and then
Air. Justice BAY I.EY said, it seems to me that in this pa. ticular
case these was no evidence to go to a Jury to entitle the plat:tiff to
a verdict, and the general rule of law is this, that whe•.: the wile
lives separate front the husband, but by no fault of her, then the
husband is bound to supply her with necessaries, but not be-
yond that; and if the husband will not supply the wife with ne-
cessaries, then she may go to the Spiritual Court, where her proper
remedy is, and that C will compel him to do so. But where
the husband and wife living together, then the husband is not
bound by any contract elsactedly the wife, except it appeared that
the wife was authorised arid entitled to act as an agent to bind
her husband ; and this authority, in order to sustain the
validity of that contract, must be clearly shown. But was it in
evidence le re that the wife had had the authority of the husband ?
I certainly think not: on the contrary, there was every chill to
show that time defendant was wholly ignorant of the transaction be-
tween his wife and the plaintiff. Now look at the facts as they ap-
pear in evidence. It had been said that the lady had a fortune of
d,OOO/. when she married; that is about 2091. a-year ; but this fact
has not been proved by the plaintiff; granting, however, that it
was, is it to he supposed that a man who could scarcely furnish a
house, and who could not afford to keep a man servant—is it to be
conceived that such a person, so circumstanced, would entitle his
wife to spend in less than four months more than 901. upon things
that were not necessary Can it be for a moment imagined that any
man would empower his wife to expend in so short a time nearly
ooe-half of her whole income? It appears that this lady had a
very liberal auto allowed her, and that the plaintiff did not look be-
yond this property for the payment of his goods ; but if he bad
acted with that common caution which all tradesmen ought to ob-
serve, he would have ascertained whether this lady really had the
means of paving him, and that not in a clandestine and secret man-
ner, but openly and fairly, like an honest dealer. What was it, in
common prudence, in the fair exercise of that discretion which
every max of business is expected to be capable of, that he ought
to have done, when asked by this lady to credit her for articles to
so large an amount ? Would lie not have gone and asked the
husband whether she was entitled to make these purchases? But
if he had even used his own faculties while in the house, he must
have perceived that this was a most improvident transaction on the
part of the defendant's wife: if he had opened his eyes he would
me that a house, which was scarcely supplied with the necessary
furniture to make it even reipectable, was not such as required the
costly trinkets in which the lady of that house was trafficking. He
would have said to himself—" Instead of laying out 1101. or M.
upon gold watches, and crosses, and brooches, it appears to me the
money would be better applied in the purchasing of furniture."
He, therefore, ought to have said to the lady—" Madam, it is
a rule with me never to deal with the lady. of the house without
ascertaining whether she Is properly &who:need to contract debts on
the part of her husband. I do not wish jo offend you, Madam—
but as it is my rule to require this information, I must inquire of
Mr. Eseinasee whether these things are to be au?plied to you, be.
fore I can undertake to deliver them over to you.' And if he had
gone to Mr. Eepinasee, and put the euestion, lie might have been
answered by that gentleman—" Why, this is a question which no
less .:can six other jewellers have asked me; and I. tell you, you
must not trust her." How should the defendant know but that
this person had been serving other men's wives in the same
manner ; and might, for aught he could tell, be a person going
about to take advantage of the females, and unpose these
charges upon their husbands? Coneidering„ then, that those things
were not necessary for the wife of the defendant ; considering that
the goods had been supplied without his knowledge or consent ; and
also considering that such a course as this would operate most in-
juriously to the interests of the public, if it were to be suffered to
continue—l am of opinion that the verdict should be set aeide,
and a nonsuit entered. This appears to me to have been the
law for a long series of years, and that, according to my Lord
Raymond's Reports, the question has been decided upon ova and
over again.
hit. Justice Ho extort. was of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice Ltrrerneez—l sin of opinion that the plaintiff
ought to have been nonsuited. The general rule is, that the hus-
band is not bound by the contract of the wife, but if there be an
eapreu or implied assent on his part, then he is chargeable. Now
in this case there certainly does not appear to be any express assent :
the plaintiff has not shown that lie had at any time applied to the
husband, or in any other manner obtained his unction to the trans-
action. Then as to the implied assent : it don not appear that
even this was given ; for by the evidence it would seem that the
articles bought were never worn by. the wife in the presence of the
husband, nor has the fact of her being in possession of the jewels
at any time been proved to have been known to the defendant until
a short period before this action was commenced. The Learned
Judge then quoted several cases from Comqn's Digest, where the
acts of the wife, for which the husband was liable, were stated, but
he observed, that none of those cases were in any manner similar
to the present. As the authorities, therefore, were all against the
liability of the defendant in this case, and as reason and policy both
required that he should not be so, I perfectly agree (said his
Lordship) in the opinion of my Learned Brothers Bayley and Hol-
royd, that this should be set aside, and a nonsuit entered for the
defendant.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—I entirely agree with the opinion
of my Learned Brothers, and I think that the rule ought to be
made absolute for a nonsuit ; and I hope this decision will tend to
the benefit of those who gain their living by selling goods of any
description. It will be of considerable benefit to the whole class
of his Majesty's subjects, and will be a salutary caution to those
who an too ready to avail themselves of the facilities which the
system of credit much too frequently affords, in disposing of their
commodities to persons having no legal capacity to contract, but
which contracts the often (but as this case will teach those who
think so, erroneously). supposed to be under a legal liability to
perform. This decision will be occasionally beneficial to infants,
to parents, to relations, and to friends, and will always he most
peculiarly beneficial to tradesman, and will point out to them those
cautions which ought to be adopted by them in all their dealings,
and prevent the moat serious looms from accruing by an inadvert-
ent, or, what is oftentimes less innocent, a speculative and hazard-
ous course of acting, by inducing persons to incur debts, which
Bilpe is no prospect of their ever paying ; this decision therefore,
Weft operate most beneficially to such persons, for those who give
credit without a fair and seasonable hope of being paid, are often in
the end most fatally deceived.
The rule for the verdict to be set aside, and a nonsuit entered,
was accordingly made absolute.
DOE. OJT THE DEM. or v. it. HUNT.
After the Bar had been gone through, Mr. Henry Hunt ad.
dressed their Lordships, and said, he appjied for a rule-in this
action of ejectment, in which he was defendant, calling upon the
lessor of the plaintiff to show muse why all proceedings should not
be stayed with costs.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—What does your affidavit Say P
Let the officer of the Court read it.
The officer then read Mr. Hunt's affidavit, in which he entered
into a long statement respecting his various shops in London; but
the ground on which this application was made, was that the de-
claration bad been served on a person who was not the tenant in
possession, and this not from ignorance of the fact ; hut as Mr.
Hunt represented, either from negligence or design on the part of
the Attorney for the lessor of the plaintiff.
The COURT having looked at the affidavit, granted the rule in
the terms required:—which were that the proceedings should be
stayed with payment of costs to be paid by the lessor of the plaintiff,
or his Attorney.