The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-23 00:00:00

ROWLANDS V. GARGRAVE.

Mr. BROUGHAM stated that the plaintiff, Mr.
Rowlands, was a jeweller and silversmith in Coven-
try-street, at the top of the Haymarket. The de-
fendant, Mr. Gargrave, was an attorney, keeping a
respectable establishment in Leicester-place. The
action was brought to recover 168./. 25., the balance
of 2291. 7s. for various articles of plate, jewels, and
trinkets, supplied by the plaintiff. The articles,
with the exception of one which formed the first
item in the bill, had been furnished on the order of
the defendant's wife; and amongst them were various
trinkets which had been purchased by that lady for
her own personal use. The other articles charged
for were for the most part plate for the defendant's
table, such as silver forks and spoons, a sugar-ladle,
tea-pot, silver pint mug, &c. These had, no doubt,'
been used at the defendant's house.• There was
also an or-mole eight-day clock. That was the
first item in the bill, and the defendant was with
his wife at the time it was selected. For all these
articles the defendant Was clearly liable; and there
could be no doubt that he was liable also for the
trinkets supplied for the use of his wife, as she was
living with him at the time,and it was to be inferred
that he authorized or knew of their purchase.
The plaintiff's son proved the delivery of the
greater part of the articles.
Mr. Jones, a wine and spirit merchant, had sup-
plied the defendant with spirits upon the order of
Mrs. Gargrave, and the defendant had himself paid
witness.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury
for the defendant. His client was a respectable
man, was in good practice as an attorney, and pos-
sessed a moderate fortune, It gave him great pain
to be obliged to defend this action, because the cir-
cumstances which he should have to lay before the
Jury would necessarily expose the imprudence of his
wife. Ile (the Attorney-General) did not mean to
deny that a wife had an implied credit from her
husband, to purchase all such things as might be-
useful in his house and suited to his station; but he
was sure the Learned Judge now presiding would
not tell the Jurv, that the law made a husband liable
to pay for jewellery and other expensive articles
purchased by a wife without his authority or know-
ledge ; on the contrary, his Lordship would tell
them that the law would not operate to bind the
husband in a case where the tradesman did not think
proper to ascertain from the husband that he was in
want of the articles ordered, or that he had given
his wife authority to purchase them. The law im-
plied a credit limited to necessaries suited to her
station anti degree, and the wife possessed no
authority beyond that. The Learned Counsel
should show that the defendant, at the time the
plate in question was purchased by the wife, was
in no want of such articles, having been long fur-
Dished with every article of that kind necessary for
his table and the accommodation of his friends; and
that his wife possessed as many trinkets as, con-;
sidering her station, she was entitled to wear. He'
should show, also, that all the articles, with the ex-
ception of the clock, and some others paid for at the
time of purchasing, were supplied without the
authority or knowledge of the defendant, and were
never used by him or his wife, or seen at his house,
and in addition to this, he should prove that the,
plaintiff declared that he was in the habit of sup-
plying articles of plate and jewellery to married
women, without the knowledge of their husbands,
and that, in this case, he, on one occasion, told Mrs.
Gargrave that he would not look to her husband
for the money. No doubt he did mean ultimately
to have recourse to the defendant ; but the Learned
Counsel contended that he had no right, by law, to
give such a credit to the wife.
John G. Craigs, a nephew, and articled clerk of
the defendant, stated that long prior to March,
1828, his uncle had a sufficient quantity of plate for
the purposes of his family. Witness never saw at
his house any of the articles mentioned in the plain-
tiff's bill, with the exception of the eight-day clock.
Never heard it mentioned in the family that Mrs.
Gargrave had any dealings with the plaintiff.
John Coleman, the defendant's servant, had been
in the habit of cleaning the defendant's plate, and
never saw any addition to it subsequent Ao March,
1828. The defendant did not appear to 16 in want
of any prior to that time. The plaiatiffii. son first
called at the defendant's house to see Mrs;:Clargrave
in June, 1829. She was not in town. Witness
told him so, but said Mr. Gargrave was in town.—
He said he wanted to see Mrs. Gargrave,, as Mr.
Gargrave knew nothing about it.
homas Dinhatn, a clerk of the defendant, stated
that until the present transaction the defendant al-
lowed Mrs. Gargrave 101. a fortnight for housekeep-
ing expences, and 101. a quarter for dress, with oc-
sional presents. Witness used to pay the money to
Mrs. Gargrave. Never saw her wear any of the fine
things supplied by the plaintiff.
Mr. Baoun,ttam having replied to the evidence,
the Jury observed to the learned Judge, that there
was no occasion to trouble him to sum up--Lthey had
made up their minds.
Lord TENTERDEN would recommend them to hear
his observations upon the case. His Lordship then
told them that a husband was answerable for articles
supplied to his wife, provided they were suitable to
her estate and degree : in other words, if a jeweller
or other tradesman, exercising a sound discretion,
reasonably presumed that the husband had given his
authority, or knew that the wife had the articles;
but a husband was not liable for articles his wife
tnight thing fit to purchase, unless there was reason
to believe that he was cognizant of the order given.
it might be a hardship, in some cases, for the
tradesman to lose the value of his goods ; but it
might be equally hard upon a husband to pay for
articles supplied without his knowledge or consent ;
and therefore, without considering to which party
the hardship was greatest, the Jury should decide
according to the law on the subject.-
While the Jury were deliberating, .

His LORDSHIP said, " Gentlemen, there is no
proof that the husband ever bud possession of any of
the plate, or even saw it; much less did he see the
trinkets, which were never worn by the wife in his
presence."
Verdict for the plaintiff for the whole• amount of
the balance claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Aram 22.
MOUNT V. LARKINS.

This was an action on a policy of insurance for
2,0001. The subject of the policy was the freight
of the ship Agzalliar, on a voyage to Sincapore,
%rith liberty to cull at various places on her return
voyage. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The damages were to be settled by arbitration.

CALAMITOUS FIRE IN FETTER-LANE.--.
ADJOURNED INQUEST ON SEVEN OF THE SUFFERERS.--
After carefully investigating all the evidence in this case,
the Jury yesterday returned the following verdict :
" That the deceased JOHN HOWARD, MARY HOWARD,
WILLIAM HOWARD, MARGARET SYRETT, MARY CANEY,
MARY-ANNE BURGEN,: and CHARLOTTE BURGEN, came
by their deaths by burning, but how the fire originated
cannot be determined upon by the Jury."