The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

WADE •. DEVALS.

This was an action against the defendant for assiatiag Is a
fraudulent removal of goods. The statute of Geo. 11. pro-
vides, that any person fraudulently removing goods, or mist-
in the removal of goods to evade payment of feat, shall be
liable to pay double the value of the gouda so remover].
The defendant's son bad rented a house belonging to the
laiutdr, iu the oighbourbood of Burton Crescent. Arresetv of
rent being due, the landlord was preparing to diet's* sad
Mr. Detail thought proper to remove the goods claadeatiatly.
A rail drew up to his doer, at five in the morning, and War
loaded was thawing The watchman refused to allow the
an to proceed, and knocked up a broker in the neighbourbond,
supposing he had some claim for parish rates. The broker had
no orders to stop the goods, but knowing the plaiutilf, he fol-
lowed the van to Danube°, where the goods were received by

the defendant, and placed in a loft. The plaintiff followed the
goods to distrain and the defendant denied they were in his
house. T
IllritiblffAsir were 'lowlier discovered, and sold for 141.
rest Le btlimelMacit'st,°Mn.r. Marrystt said the
'pl was entitled to double the value of the goods ; but if
the de f rodent agreed to pay the arrears of rent, amounting to
271 a verdict for that sum was all the plaintiff required.
Mr. Gurney on the part of the defendant. consented to that
proposal, and the Jury found a verdict for Ibl. which included
money paid by the landlord fur tales.
•ILLS Y. HURST.
The plaintiff, who keeps a lodging. house in Mortimer-street,
Cavendish-square, brought his action to recover 751. for lodg-
ings. Iliquors, and provisions supplied to the defendant.
It appeared by the defence to the action, that the whole of
this demand occurred at a period when the defendant was under
age, and the right of the plaintiff to recover, word spun thy
credit due to the plaintiff s housekeeper, who proved a pro•
mire on the part of the defendant to pay when he came of
age..

-The Learned Judge left the Jury to decide on the question,
whether a promise was made to pay after the defendant came of
age.
_ _

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintilT—Diouages
EVERY V. FLIGHT.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was a linen-
draper in Marchmont-street, Russell-square, to recover from
the defendant, a livery•stable keeper, a born of 621. for goods
delivered to his wife. Mr. Flight had turned his wife out of
doors, and refused even to deliver her clothes to her friends
who applied for them, and therefore she was obliged to provide
herself with more, fur which the law made her husband
The defence was, that the wife had forfeited her claim to prusi-
■ion from her husband by adultery.
The !iord Chief Justice said that it was absolutely necessary
for the plaintiff to show that the wile was excluded from her
husband's house, without clothes: because otherwise this large
quantity could not be necessaries, for which alone, in my case,
the husband would be liable. There were only two cases in
which a man was liable for goods rupplied to his wife ; one was
the ordinary case where the parties were living together, at,d
the goods ordered by the wife were sent home, in which case
assent was presumed ; and the other was, where the husband
turned his wife away without cause, and then made biniself
liable for necee..aries suitable to her station. Now, to show a
prima facie liability, the evidence of Mr Chambers was neces-
sary; and that evidence must be taken altogether, as disclosing
the cause for which Mr. Flight excluded his wife from his
house, and refused to pay the debt she had contracted.
The plaintiff was nonsuited.