The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 21.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
TAYLOR Y. NESSFIELD.-ASSAIILT.

Mr. Quain said he had to move on behalf of the plain-
tiff to set aside the judgment entered for him in the first
count of the declaration, on the ground that it had been
entered by the defendant without plaintiff's knowledge.
The action was brought against Mr. Nessfield, a magis-
trate of Derby. The first count was for assault and
battery—the second for a malicious prosecution. The
plaintiff reoovered on the first count, with damages of
one farthing, but failed on the second for want of due
notice. The same plaintiff also brought an action at
the same time against a person named Dove, the counts
being the same as in that against Nessfield. On the
first count he recovered 21., and on the second count
801. The cases eame before this court on motions for
new trials, which was refused in " Taylor v. Nessfield,"
so the verdict stood as it was ; but in "Taylor v. Dove"
a new trial was granted on the motion of the defendant.
Nessfield then obtained Lord Campbell's postea, as if
with the object of entering up judgment for himself on
the second count, but he entered it for the plaintiff on
the first count ; and when the action against Dove
came to be retried it was pleaded that there had been
a joint trespass which had been tried, and that stopped
the trial.

Lord Campbell considered that Taylor and Nessfield
being over, the defendant had a right to have the record
perfected, but the learned counsel might take a rule to
show cause.

Rule accordingly.

BAIL COURT.

TIDCOMBE AND OTHERS V. LAWRENCE.-A JUDGE'S

DUTY.

Mr. Naylor moved for a rule to show cause why a pro-
hibition should not issue to the judge of the Borough
Court of Cambridge, on the ground that the judge had
an interest in the cause. It was an act of trespass by
the trustees of a literary institution called the Working
Man's Reading Room, established at Cambridge. The
property of the society was vested in the committee as
trustees for the members, and the property of the insti-
tution was the question in the cause. The judge was
an honorary member of the institution, and it was sug-
gested that he should not try the cause. He, however,
insisted on doing so, and the defendant withdrew from
court, when a verdict passed for the plaintiffs.
His lordship granted a rule.
THE QUEEN V. HAZLEWOOD AND OTHEIIL-THE NEW
PIER AT LONDON-BRIDGE.

Mr. Bovill moved for a certiorari to bring up an in-
dictment which had been found at the Old Bailey against
the defendants for a nuisance in erecting a pier in the
Thames on the Surrey side of London-bridge.
Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. THE RECORDER OF BIRMINGHAIt.

In this case, moved yesterday by Mr. Serjeant Miller,
Mr. Justice Crompton said that as the matter was one
of considerable importance he would grant the rule ; but
he entertained a strong impression against it.
Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. PORTER.-ALLEGED PERJURY.

In this case a rule had been obtained calling on the
prosecutor to show cause why the applicant should not
be admitted to bail in the country. He had been com-
mitted for trial on a charge of perjury, committed in
evidence he had given before Mr. Crusoe, one of the
justices of Staffordshire, in behalf of a person charged
before him with trespassing in pursuit of game.
Mr. Huddleston now showed cause against the rule.
Mr. Justice Crompton thought this was a proper case
for bail, and he would admit the prisoner to bail on two
sureties of 201. each, or four of 10/. each.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE BIILLOCK.--RIGHT OF A WIFE TO CONTRACT DEBTS

FOR LUXURIES.
The bankrupt was a chemist and druggist, of Conduit-
street. A claim was made to prove against the estate
for about 2001., the balance of a debt of 3501., by the
assignees of Merrington, draper, of Bond-street, also a
bankrupt.

Mr. heed appeared on behalf of the assignees of Mer-
rington to support the claim.
Mr. Lawrauce, for the assignees of Bullock, resisted
the claim.

A clerk of Merrington's proved the purchase of the
goods by Mrs. Bullock. Sometimes she came to his
toaster's shop, and sometimes the goods were taken by
witness to Mr. Bullock's house, where she made the
purchases. Mr. Bullock was present on some occasions
when the goodslwere bought. Recollected one such oc-
casion, when a parasol, at 335. 6d., was purchased, lie
recollected that because Mr. Bullock was then playing
with a lap-dog. (A. laugh.) Had seen Mrs. Bullock
wearing some of the dresses so bought.
Mr. Lowrance pointed out one item of 15 guineas for
a silk cloak, and asked the witness if it were customary
for tradesmen's wives to buy such expensive articles of
dress

Witness—Yes ; many tradesmen's wives buy articles
quite as rich as that. We frequently sell them articles
at 10 or 12 guineas each.
The Commissioner—During what time was this 3501.
worth of goods obtained?
It appeared from the bill produced that it was between
February and December of last year. It also appeared
that no part of the 1501. which had been paid had been
paid by the bankrupt.
Mr. Lawraece called attention to the following items :
—two brocaded robes, 17 guineas, in March ; two ditto,
17 guineas, in the next month ; sky mantle, 14 guineas ;
another dress, 15 guineas ; and on one day, December
14, goods, 521. 14s. ; also velvet jacket, 4 guineas ; and
a sable muff, 15 guineas.
It was admitted that Mr. Bullock had not been applied
to for payment until the whole of the debt had been
contracted.

Mr. Lawrence said this was a most melancholy case.
An entry in Bullock's balance-sheet showed how the
wretched vanity of a woman might involve her unfor-
tunate husband in ruin, as was the case here. In
Westminster-hall, a tradesman who had supplied goods
to such an amount and under such circumstances, had
not been held entitled to the slightest consideration.
Scarcely any lady amongst the aristocracy would
be warranted in running up such a bill in ten months
—52/. worth of goods in a single day. The claim
ought not to be allowed, for ➢lerrington was net
justified in supplying such an enormous quantity of arti-
cles, of the most expensive luxury, to the wife of a
chemist and druggist without leave of the husband, who
lived in the next street. He called on the court to re-
ject the claim.

Mr. Reed, while admitting that many of the items
were of a highly objectionable character, contended upon
the authority of " Manley v. Scott" (Smith's cases), that
the husband was bound to pay a debt so contracted by
his wife. It was there laid down by all the judges, that
if the wife purchased goods, and the husband, by any
act, precedent or subsequent, ratified the contract, that
was a consent, and the husband must be held liable.
Mr. Justice Bayley had, in effect, held, that whenever
the husband and wife lived together the husband must
be bound by the acts of the wife, where there was rea•
sonable evidence to show that the wife had made the
contract with his consent. In this case, the wife must,
according to the evidence, be regarded as the agent of
the husband, who could not be absolved from th liabi-
lity without giving Merrington notice that he would not
be liable.

His Honour said it was quite clear that in this case
there was not sufficient evidence to establish the general
cognisance of the husband, who, it would appear, only
knew of a few articles having been bought. A single
instance where a man might indulge his wife was not
sufficient to warrant a tradesman in afterwards supply.
ing her with articles of the most extravagant nature, of
great value, and at enormous prices. That would be
an exceedingly dangerous doctrine to lay down—a doc•
trine which would lead to this : that because a husband,
no matter what his means or position was, sanctioned
the purchase of necessaries, or a few luxuries by his wife,
she might make purchases to any extent, even though
it may involve him in utter ruin. Both parties before
him being bankrupts, he (the Commissioner) must put
himself in the position of a jury ; and, adopting that
character, the court felt perfectly convinced that no jury
would treat as necessaries dresses at 151. or 171. each to
the wife of a chemist and druggist. The account must
be examined by some competent person, and settled
upon this principle—that necessaries be paid for, but that
all articles--say exceeding 51. in price—having bee❑
supplied without the sanction of the bankrupt be
disallowed. He might finally observe that tradesmen
owed a duty in this respect to one another as traders,
and ought not to encourage such extravagance, at
least, uuless they well knew the husband was cogui-
ssnt of it.