The Sun.
London, England, 1814-12-05 00:00:00

Gravesend, grocer, at eleven*, at Guildhall—Dec. 24. J. Beck,
Ashe-terrace; Huxton, clock-maker, at twelve, at Guildhall
—Dee. 21. K. Charles, St. Al'ian';:street, taylor, at twelve,
atGuildliall--130% 31.. J,, Dempsey, Coleman-street, taylor,
at ten, at Guildhall--Dec. 24. IV, Gay, Alby,' eattk;'-johher,
at four, at the Not folk Hotel, Norwich—Jai. 14. 13. Sifiken,
Bush-lane, merchant., at twelve, at Guildhall.

CFRTIFICATES—Der. 24. -
'l. Faulkner and Co. merchants, Cracked-friars, London—
•
J. Jana Way, draper, Parliament-street, Middlesex—Nl. Wil-
Tins,
,ship-owner, North Shields, Northumberland—lt. amt..
ndck and Co. t;ttiton-spinnefs, Iltghton, Lancaster-,E, %rat,
son and" Co. dealers, Love-lane, Londotn •
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. s-
R.Wibberly aid S. Surplice, Liverpool; hosiers--J: Sewell,
sen. arid J.. Sewell, jun. Great Yarmouth, silversmithS—J.-
Maemicliaand W. Grierson, Bridgnorth, linen-drapeis-
W. L. Ph elps•and C i. Eveshant, solicitoisi. Blundell anti
J. Richardson; Liverpool, inerchantsG;-: Jacksotv a•nd
Jackson, Providence-green; -• Yorkshire, spirit-merchants—
Edwards and W4itherland, Chester, grocers-C. Brooke
stud J. Nowell,. Liversedge,' Yorkshire, wirc\-drawers-VV.
Pick and Stone Gloutestershire,
millers-4. B. Cresswell atitt-Co. Exeter .clothiertt—C, ,
Ito'
Wilson and London, merchants.

LLIGEN.O

COURT' OV COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 3.

SEPARATE MAINTENANCE.

WOOII V. FLETCHER.

Mr.•Sedeant LENS stated, that thiS was an ac-"
tion brought by the pfaintiff, who was a consider;
able coal-dealer, to recover, of the defendant, a
merchant in the city, the very small sum of 22/.
for seven _chaldrOn of coals, furnished to Mrs.
Fletcher. The--,facts were these, Mr. and Itlts.
Fletcher had for- some years been separated from
each ether. The lady lived- in I}ean-street,
Park-lane, and' Mr.- Fletcher.' resided' -at Bal-
ing. He should prove that tire coals. were deli:-
vered at Mrs. Fletcher'S house, and, as:it could
not he contended.that they'were -not' a necessary,
the husband' was hound to pay for them.
The delivery of the _coals Was prOVed.
Fletcher gave The order for them,
.and the credit.
was given to her, and, not to her husband'. It
appeared she had dealt with the phibitiffs seven
years, and had paid regidarly, with the exception.
.of the articles in,question; but when tin. plain-
tiffs Fist applied for payment; She referredthem to
her husband. -It further appeared that Mrs.
Fletcher. had a complete establishment of her
own, that she kept a house and servants, and' con--
sequently must have been allowed a' separate
maintenance. But it was prOyedthat such main-
tenance was not secured to her by any deed. It
was -stated
.that her . husband paid two suns of
75/. to ber.agent,. about the time this debt was
contracted.; , ,
Air. Serjeant BEST, upon these facts; contended
that the defendant was not liable..
• The CHltt, .lusTicl said there was no case in
the boots that exactly resembled the present; one.
He must•therefore decide it, as well as he could,
upon the principles, laid down in other cases.—
The authorities were not all reconcilable to each
other ; bUt thus far had been decided, that if there
was a separate maintenance, if the money was re-;.
gularly paid; and the husband and wife lived sepa-
rately from each other, the husband was not answer-
able for the debts which the wife might contract.
Now What were the facts of this case. It appeared
that the Lady bad, for the.last seven years, beyn
resident .separatc,from her husband, in the house
which she inhabited, and to which the plaintiffs
had for that period
.been accustomed to send their
goods. It appeared that she had not ordered them
as a married woman ; .that dnring the seven years
she had paid the plaintiff herself; that the ;plain-
tiff had never any intimation of' her being a mar-
ried woman, till long sifter she had ordered the
goods as
.a single woman. When the bill was
sent in, she then for the,first time refused to- pay
•it, on the score that she was a married woman.—
He had before stated, if the wife had a separate
maintenance regularly paid, that the husband had
been held. not to' he answerable. The facts proved
were, that the husband and his wife had lived se-
parately ; that certain payments had been made
by the husband to the wife ; that the husband, for
seven years, had never been called upon by the
tradesmen who sent in goods to the-%vite, but that
they had always been paid for by her; that two
sums of 751. had been paid to her attorney, Which
she received. He must take it for granted, that
payments to the same amount had been previously
and regUlaily made by the husband. to her, for
otherwise, as she was living separate, she could not
have been enabled to have supported herself sepa-
rately. The payments; if regular, would amount
to 3001. ; and he had no evidence before him to
'shew that 3001.'a year was not a fair and ample
proviSion for this Lady, who by agreement was
living from him. Taking the facts to be that the
husband and wife had agreed to live separate, and
had done so upon her receiving a separate main-
tenance from him, that' igh there was no stipula-
tion as to the exact' sum,' and considering 3001.
a year a competent provision for a woman living
apart from her husband, he was of, opinion that
within the principie of the doctrines laid dawn, the
husband was not liable.-,The Plaintiff was ac-
cordingly nonsUited.