The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 1.
MA"I"FERS OF PRACTICE.
The Loan CHANCELLOR refused an order for sequestration
of the goods of an insolvent confined in Whitecross-street pri-
son, that place being, according to all which he could find in
the books, out of the sphere of his jurisdiction.
EXETER V. SCOTT.
This was a subject of more grave importance, as it reports
the power of this Court. It was an appeal from the Vice-
Chancellor, who had refused the motion asked by the plaintiff,
to restrain the defendant, a bond creditor to an estate of which
the plain tiff is executor, from pressing his action for the recovery
of the judgment debt. The Vice-Chancellor had refused the
motion, because the plaintiff' had entered on record in defence
to the action a false plea of plow adatinistravit, whereas he held
2,000/. which belonged to the estate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that the judgment of
his llonour was agreeable to a precedent which he had him-
self furnished in a similar case (which is to be found in Al er-
rivale); but he now doubted the soundness of it, and would
therefore restrain the action for the present, until he could
apply his mind again to the question. The defendant could
suffer nothing from the delay, because he could not enter up
judgment, if he obtained a verdict, before the third day of
next term ; and in the mean time the point would be finally
ruled. llis Lordship spoke at some length on the comparative
scope of his overt and the common law jurisdictions, and con-
tended that the Lord Chancellor had as much power and autho-
rity in judging questions of common law as the Chief Justices
of the two Courts in Westminster Hall. Upon that point he
was as confident as Lord Mansfield or Lord Kenyon could be.
For if the Lord Chancellor should think there was a neces-
sity to invite any of those Judges into his Court to aid him
with their advice upon a question of law, the decision, with
all due respect to their persons and offices, would be that of
the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship adverted to the practice
in those cases which caused the communication of the pro-
ceedings in one of the jurisdictions to be communicated to the
other. Ile observed that the common law did not give that con-
. sideration to the decrees of equity which the Court of Equity
gave to the judgments of common law. In most instances, he
thought that those courts paid too little attention to equitable
circumstances, which a Court of Chancery could not overlook.
This made it often happen, that the Court could not establish
the verdict sent up on tr►al of an issue from Chancery in those
Courts. He mentioned an instance where the Chief Justices of
the two Courts had sent up opposite judgments upon a case
which he had referred to them, and he differed from both.
Lord Bathurst had once declared, that he never liked law so
much as when it looked like equity. Lord De Grey had said,
that he liked equity best when it looked like law. Lord Thur.
low thought that there should be no difference between them.
He himself was of opinion that there was the greatest danger
if they should be mingled.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEu. 1.
The Court was occupied this day with hearing causes of no
interest but to the parie concerned.

;COURT OF KlNti'S IIENCII, FEn. 1.
c.tmiNG ItousEs.

THE KING v. JOSIAH TAYAOR.

This was an application to the Court to take from the file a
plea of outrefois acquit, to an indictment for keeping a com-
mon gaming-house, ;pleaded pui3 darrien continuance, on the
ground that it was entitled generally of .Michaelmas Term,
though it was not pleaded till the 19th Nov. The prosecutor
also swot' that the acquittal so pleaded was obtained by fraud
and collusion, which was not denied on the part of the defen-
dant. The case was argued an a former day.
The Loan CHIEF .1 t- sT icv. now gave judgment that the
plea was irregularly pleaded, and must be taken off the file.—
There
were cases, indeed, where the Court would, in its dis-
cretion, receive such a plea, or allow it to remain, though plead-
. ed out of time ; but they would not grant this indulgence in a
case where it was sworn on the one side, and not denied on the
other, that the matter to be introduced on the file was fraudu-
lently procured, and could only tend to defeat the purposes of
justice. The rule, therefore, for quashing the plea must be
made absolute. _

LIABILITY OP HUSBANDS TO PAY THEIR. WIVES'

li LBTS.

MONTAGUE r. EsPtwAssE.
This was an action by a jeweller against Mr. Espinasse, the
special pleader, to recover 49/.. the balance of a bill for jewel-
lery furnished to the extent of 90/. on the order of his wife.—
At the trial, before the Lord Chief-Justice at Westminster, it
appeared that no express authority ever was given by the hus-
band to the wife to purchase the jewels. The articles supplied
were furnished in about two months, anti left with Mrs. Espi-
nasse, at her house in Guildford-street. On these occasions,
Mr. Espinasse was from home, being engaged by his proles.
sional pursuits in chambers. The maid-servant of Mrs. Es-
pinasse never saw her mistress wear any of the articles in the
presence of her husband. Upon this evidence, Mr. Gurney
submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, as he had
shown no authority, express or implied, from the defendant
which could bind him. The Lord Chief-Justice, however,
then thought it was a question for the jury, under all the cir-
cumstances, whether Mr. Espinasse, by word or by conduct,
authorized the purchase; but gave the Learned Counsel leave
to move, in case the verdict should pass against lihn. Mr. .Jas.
Espinasse, the nephew of the defendant was then called on
his behalf, anti stated that Mrs. Espinasse brought a fortune
to her husband soinewhat under four thousand pounds ;
that out of this sum 601. a year was paid to her for her separate
use that Mr. Espilasse resided in a house very moderately
furnished, taking aTiouse in the country for a short time in the
summer; that he kept no man-servant, and that his lady had
trinkets suited to her condition in life. The Lord Chief Jus-
tice left the case to the Jury, with strong observations in favour
of the defendant, but :they found for the plaintiff. In Easter
Term Mr. Gurney
oil-lined a rule to show cause why this
verdict should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered or a new
trial had.
Against this rule Mr. PLATT now shelved cause. The
matters, he urged, which had been submitted to the Jury, were
proper for their consideration, and the Court could not say that
they had decided wrong. Two questions had been left to them
--whether the articles were suitable to the station and degree of
the defendant, and whether there was ground to presume
that he assented to the purchase.; and on both these the
Jury had expressed their opinion, after every remark had been
made calculated to direct their opinion to all their bearings.—
As to the first question, it was stated that .llr. Espinasse was a
special pleader—one of a class who performed a great deal of
labour for very little money ; but still he was living in 41 cer-

Lain style, and holding out an appearance to the world which
fairly justified a tradesman in regarding him as enjoying a con-
siderable income. In the case of " Horton re Willey," re-
ported by Skinner, a claim was made on a serjeant-at-law for
jewellery and brocade furnished to his wife to the extent of near-
ly uni.; and tho'igh it appeared that the lady had threateried
to ruin her husband, and that there was a disagreement between
them, the Learned Judge directed the .fury to find for the plain-
tiff, if they thought the articles suitable to the degre of the
husband ; and " the jury, being of gentlemen," found for the
plaintiff So, here, the jury, " being of gentlemen," also found
a similar verdict. On the second question. great stress was laid
at the trial upon the absence of proof that Mrs. Espinasse wore
the jewels in the presence of her husband. Surely, it was hard
to cast the burden-Pet such proof on the tradesman, whodid
know, and who could know, little or nothing of the matter, anti
who gave credit to the appearance•of the station which a hus-
band enabled his wife to sustain.
Mr. Scant. ETT, in support of the rule, said he thought the
jury had very much overrated the profits and the rank of a
special pleader, the relation of which to that of a sergeant the
Judges were etter able to estimate. By the general rule of
law, a wife could not bind her husband; the cases in which
she might reasonably be presumed to have this authority were
exceptions to that rule ; but if these exceptions were held to
extend to articles like those under consideration, they would
desii.oy the rule. It was a remarkable fact, that the maid of
the lady had never seen her wear these jewels ; surely then it
could not be pretended that her husband gave her authority to
buy them. All the circumstances tended to raise the presump-
tion that the plaintiff dealt with the lady in her own credit,
believing her to be possessed of an independent fortune ; and
the time might come when she would be able to pay him, but
he had no claim in law or justice on her husban,d.
Mr. Gu RNE V, on the same side, was stopped by the Court.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said be was clearly of opinion that
there was no evidence of authority to go on to the jury, and
that the plaintif should have been nonsuited. The rule of law
was this—if a man, except for sufficient cause, turned away
his wife, he was liable to fulfil .contracts made by her for ne-
cessaries; if he omitted to supply her with necessaries while
residing with him, perhaps he would also be liable ; but when
the husband and wife-were living together, he was liable only
for articles which she might reasonably be supposed to purchase
by his sanction, as wearing-apparel for herself, or provisions
for tile family. In this case there was no reason to suppose
such authority, but every reason to believe that none was
given. The lady's fortune was under 4,0001., which would
yield an income of less than 200!. a-year ; and was it to be be-
lieved that her husband authorized her to spend nearly half a
year's income in two months, in jewels which she did not want ?
While he was working hard in chambers to support his family
in respectability and comfort, was he to be made liable for
jewels, while the appearance of his furniture informed the
tradesman who called for orders in his absence, that they were
wholly unsuited to his station ? In this case there was gross negli-
gence on the part of the plaintiff, who surely ought to have called
on Mr. Espinasse, and asked whether lie sanctioned the purchases
which his wife proposed to make. Had lie made the inquiry,
he might have received for answer " You are the sixth jeweller
who has asked this question, anti to whom I have answered
that I will be liable for no such purchases." On these grounds,
therefore, the rule for a nonsuit must be made absolute.

111 r. Justice Ilot.noYn and Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE con-
curred.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—l entirely agree with all
that has fallen from my Learned Brothers. If this decision
should have the effect of teaching greater caution to tradesmen
in giving credit, the result will he often beneficial to husbands,
fathers, guardians, and friends ; generally beneficial to infants ;
and constantly and invariably beneficial to tradesmen, who too
often find that by rashly giving credit, they not only injure
those whose extravagance they encourage, but bring ruin on
themselves.—The rule for a nonsuit was accordingly made ab-
solute.

SMITH V. LONG WELLESLEY.
Mr. GURNEY moved for a rule to chew cause why the out-
lawry in this case should not be set aside. The affidavit upon
which the application was made, stated that 31r. Smith, the
plantitf, brought an action against the Sheriff for returning
71U11a hone, and was nommited. He afterwards found some
effects on which he levied, and afterwards went on against the
defendant to outlawry. The defendant had offered to pay all
the costs of the outlawry, but the plaintiff refused to take any
thing, unless all the costs of the action were paid, Mr. Gurney
now contended that the costs of the action and the outlawry
could not be both saddled upon the defendant.—The Court
granted a rule to spew cause.