The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—APRIL 23.
IN RE THOS. HENP.Y CA.MABAII, AN AFRICAN PRINCE.
HABEAS CORPUS.
In this case Mr. fiance had obtained a rule for a writ
of habeas corpus before Mr. Baron Platt, at chambers,
to bring up the body of Thomas Henry Camabah,, a co-
loured youth, about seven years of age, now in the care
and custody of Mr. Swinton:
It appeared that the youth was the son of an African
chief, called King Camabah, whose territory was near
Sierra Leone, and with whom Mr. Swinton, the captain
of a merchant ship, now residing at Liverpool, had had
some commercial transactions, and his father had en-
trusted the boy to the care of Mr. Swinton, to get him
educated in England. Some correspondence had passed
between them, by which it appeared that Mr. Swinton
had demanded, in one of his letters to King Camabah,
the sum of 2501., which he alleged to be due to him in
some business matters, and threatened, unless it were
paid, to keep the young prince and make him his ser-
vant. The writ of habeas corpus was obtained at the
instance of Mr. Wilcox, hon. secretary to the Countess
of Huntingdon's Society, who have a missionary station in
the dominions of King Camabah, on the coast of Africa,
and who alleged that they had authority to obtain posses-
sion of the child and educate him in the Christian faith.
The rule was made returnable in the full court, and Mr.
Swinton now presented himself with his youthful charge,
who was of perfectly sable hue, and appeared to be an
interesting and intelligent boy of his age.
Mr. Willes showed cause against the rule, and said
that Capt. Swinton never for a moment entertained the
idea of making the boy his servant, although he might
have used such a threat to his father. He had about 2
years ago, undertaken to get the child educated, and
had been instructed by his father, the King, not to pay
attention to any application respecting him which did
not bear the impression of a seal. The authority to ob-
tain possession of the child produced by Mr. Wilcox was
written by a person on behalf of the father, but did not
bear the impress of the necessary seal. An application
had been made to Prince Albert, with a view of obtain-
ing for the boy a nomination at Christ's Hospital.
Mr. Hance having been heard in support of the rule,
and having urged the importance of the society obtain-
ing possession of the young prince, in order that they
might educate him in the Christian religion, with a view
to its being promulgated and adopted eventually in the
dominions over which he might be called to rule.
The Chief Baron, and other members of the court,
conferred with the young prince, who spoke broken
English, to ascertain his feelings on the subject ; and
ultimately decided that he should remain in the care of
Capt. Swinton, who should undertake not to remove
him out of the jurisdiction of the courts of the kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland.
The parties then withdrew.
RENEAux v. TEAXLE.--LIABILITY OF A HUSBAND TO'
PAY DEBTS CONTRACTED BY HIS WIFE.—IMPORTANT
CASE.

This was an action by a milliner to recover the amount
of a bill for goods supplied to the defendant's wife. It
appeared that the defendant resided in the Acacia-road,
St. John's-wood, and had an income of about 300/. a
year. He allowed his wife, who lived with him and
took care of their children, 30/. a year to provide her-
self with clothes, and the plaintiff was aware of this fact
One of the witness at the trial swore that the defen-
dant's wife was in the habit of dressing herself very
finely after her husband had left home in the morning
and going out, always returning shortly before he came
home, and then changing her dress. The defence at the
trial was, that the goods had been supplied to Mrs.
Teakle without the defendant's knowledge or authority.
The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff for
the amount claimed. Mr. Baron Platt at the trial re-
fused to admit evidence of many similar claims having
been sent into the defendant, amounting altogether to
1501.

A rule was subsequently obtained to set aside the
verdict, and for a new trial.

Mr. Brewer now showed cause against the rule, and
urged that the defendant was liable, the goods obtained
having been suitable to Mrs. Teakle's station of life.
The Chief Baron—Supposing a gentleman of ascetic
habits chose to say that his wife should wear only surge,
the tradespeople to whom he had given notice of it had
no right to supply her with anything she might order.
Mr. Baron Martin—lf a man tells his wife, " You
shall not have such a thing ;" she cannot pledge his
authority for it.

Mr. Brewer said it had been decided by Lord Ellen-
borough that where a man was living with his wife, he
was liable for any goods he permitted her to receive.
The Chief Baron—A tradesman is not entitled to trust
a man's wife without his authority.
Mr. Brewer—But see, my lord, what the consequence
of such a doctrine would be, if tradesmen were to refuse
to supply ladies entering their shops with goods without
first making inquiry of their husbands whether they had
given them authority to do so or not.
The Chief Baron—lt may not be necessary to mike
direct inquiry of the husband ; but a .tradesman may
find out who the lady is before he gives her credit ; and
whether she is in a position of life to warrant her pur-
chasing the goods she had selected.
Mr. Baron Martin—lf a respectable woman goes into
a shop, it may be presumed that she has authority to
order goods for herself and children ; but if the husband
says, " I gave her no authority to do so, and supplied
her with other goods," the tradesman cannot recover.
It is a question of authority, the same as with any other
servant.

Mr. Gray, in support of the rule, quoted "Benedict
v.iMontagu," (3 Barn, and Cres.,63l) in which Mr.
Justice Holroyd laid down the doctrine that where a
tradesman supplied goods to a wife, without ascertain-
ing whether necessity for her having them existed, he
supplied them at his own peril ; and the burden of the
proof of the assent of the husband lay on the party sup-
plying the goods, and who acted upon the supposed au-
thority of the husband.

The Chief Baron—We are all of opinion that there
ought to be a new trial.

Mule absolute.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.—APRIL 23.
THE QUEEN V. ELIZABETH BROOKS.-A WIFE RECEIVING
STOLEN GOODS FROM HER HUSBAND.
This case was sent up by the Recorder of Liverpool,
before whom the prisoner had been convicted, of receiv-
ing goods knowing them to have been stolen ; and the
point for the determination of the Court was, whether a
wife could be convicted of such an offence, she having
received the goods in question from her husband, by
whom they had been stolen.
On behalf of the prosecution, Mr. Brett contended
that although the presumption of law in such a case was,
that the wife had acted under the influence and control
of her husband, yet there might be evidence to show
that she had acted voluntarily.
Mr. Baron Parke said it was perfectly clear that a wife
receiving stolen goods from her husband could not, under
any circumstances, be an offence. The conviction must,
therefore, be set aside.
Conviction quashed.