The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-02 00:00:00

RUSSELL V. SMITH.-JUDGMENT.

His Hosourt also gave judgment in this case, which
was heard during the last term, upon a motion on the
part of the defendant to dissolve an injunction which
had been granted some time ago, restraining the defend-
ant from singing certain songs, which formed part of the
musical entertainments of Mr. Henry Russel►,
the celebrated vocalist, and in which Mr. Russell
claimed an exclusive property under the Copps right
Act and the Act with respect to Dramatic Performances.
The Court, upon a previous application to dissolve the
injunction, had directed the plaintiff to bring action
with respect to certain of the songs, and had dissolved
the injunction with respect to others. The plaintiff had
brought no action with respect to several of the songs,
among which were "The Ship on Fire" and "The Sea
King's Burial," Szc.; to the others the record had been
so shaped as not to be calculated to try the question
which the Court was anxious to have tried. Under these
circumstances, looking at the course that had been pur-
sued by the plaintiff, his Honour thought that the con-
tumacy he had displayed in not complying with the
order of the Court, must be followed up by dissolving
the injunction with costs.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions, none of
which possessed any point of interest except to the par-
ties concerned.

(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
KNIGHT 2'. KNIGHT.

His tloNoun delivered judgment this case to-day.
This w.,s an administration snit, and there were two
questions at issue between the parties. The first, as to
whether a gift claimed under a will had not been liqui-
dated by another gift subseqeently made under a mar-
riage settlement, and whether a portion of the answer of
the defendant was net impertinent. It appeared that
the testator, George Knight, who was senior partner in
a business in Foster-lane, had left to his daughter, by a
will bearing date July, 1840, an annuity of 1001. per
annum in case of her mother's death, or of her (the
devisee's) marriage. This latter event took place during
the lifetime of the testator, and a sum to the amount of 3,333/.
in Consols was settled in trust for her use, to afford the in-
come of 100/. ayear. It appeared further, that early in 1845
the testator died, and an assignment between the devisee
and her husband of theirtestarnentary rights under the will
took place shortly afterwards. A paper in the handwriting
of the testator had been found in his cash box after his de-
mise, but without a signature or date, and this document
purported to be his will. A devise of 1001. a year to his
daughter was specified in this will, and it was contended
in her behalf that the intention of the testator, as evinced
by this document, was to give her an additional income of
1001. per annum, which she set forth in her answer, but
the M-!ster did not consider this paper peitinent, and
therefore would not allow its insertion. Ile (Sir J.
Wigram) having read bath bill and answer, considered
that the better way would be to decide in favour of the
exceptions pro forma, though he felt satisfied that the
Master was partly right and partly in error in his deci-
sion. lie considered it better also to defer the further
consideration of the case, together with the costs, till
after the hearing of the entire case.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 1.

LIABILITY TO MAINTAIN A WIFE.-JEFFEREYS V. MAY.

This was au action to recover 781. for necessaries sup-
plied by the plaintiff to the defendant's wife, namely,
board, clothing, and lodging, for a considerable period.
The defendant, who is a retired tradesman at Sheffield,
denied his liability on the ground that his wife had left
him without his consent, and that she had committed
adultery, and consequently forfeited all legal claim upon
him. They were married in 1826, but bad had no
children. Mrs. May was a governess before she was
married. Mr. May had been previously married, the
issue of which was three children. For some time be-
fore the end of 1842 they had lived unhappily together,
they frequently quarrelled, and on these occasions Mr.
May often struck his wife. On one occasion he turned
her out of doors. In conseyience of repeated ill-treat-
ment on his part she left him in September, 1842, and
took up her abode with the plaintiff, who is a relation,
at Bristol, and who, up to the present time, had sup-
plied her with nee( scaries. The venue was laid in

iiristol, but had been removed into Middlesex in order
to obtain a speedy trial. The case had been tried before,
but the verdict was not satisfactory to the plaintiff.
Mr. CROWDER, QC. (with whom were Mr. Butt,
Q.C,, and two other Learned Gentlemen), having stated
these facts, proceeded to deal with the defence s.et up by
the defendant, and with the law on the subject. No
doubt it would be set up on the other side that the de-
fendant had inserted an advertisement in some of the
newspapers, cautioning persons not to give credit to his
wife, as she had left him without his consent ; but this
would not avail, as it had been expressly laid down that
if a wife was compelled to leave her husband on account
of ill treatment, and against his will, that such an act on
her part did not remove his liability to furnish her with
necessaries. In the case of Harris v. Morris, which was
similar to the ono before the Court, Lord Kenyon held
that where a man sent his wife away from him, and could
not prove anything against her which would remove his
liability, he was liable to furnish her with the necessaries
of life. In that case the wife was turned out of doors,
and the defence set up was, that she had eloped, and
that her husband had advertised her in the newspapers,
and cautioned the public not to trust her. If Mr. May
really desired his wifz, to live with him, and she
had left him without his consent, the proper mode
to do so was to sue in the Consistorial Court for a resti-
tution of conjugal rights, when the whole matter would
be investigated. In the case of Emery v. Emery, it was
held that if a husband required his wife to return to him
and she refused to do so on account of the ill-treatment
she had experienced, that the husband did not get rid of
his liability. lle should show that the conduct of Mr.
May to his wife compelled her to leave him ; that he
had been bound over to keep the peace towards her ;
that after she had left him on account of his personal
violence, she offered to return, and went to his house for
that purpose, but he pushed her out of doors. Unless
adultery could be shown, and that she was not ill-
treated, and had no ground for leaving her husband, he
apprehended that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a
verdict for such a sum as they thought she was justly
entitled to for keeping Mrs. May in clothes, board, and
lodging. The defendant was in good circumstances, and
was well able to support his wife ; 255. per week was
spoken of on one occasion, and the plaintiff charged at
that rate.

Mrs. Mary Wrang, wife of Mr. Wrang, a draper, of
Sheffield, examined by Mr. BUTT—She deposed that
she knew Mr. and Mrs. May, in consequence of residing
in the next house to them in Pond-street, Sheffield.
Heard her one day in January, 1842, cry for help from
the parlour. Saw her two or three hours after at the
kitchen door, when she observed that her face was
swollen, and that one of her eyes was very black. Some
time after she heard Mrs.. May cry "Murder," and call
her by name for assistance. Went to the kitchen and
found Mr. and Mrs. May quarrelling. Mrs. May was
crying; her cap was torn, and her hair hung down her
back. Heard Eliza Jones, Mr. May's daughter, who
was present, say, " Many a man would hare cut you up
into pie meat before this for less than you have done."
Mr. .Tames May, his son, in coming across the yard
of the house, said, " Don't murder the woman." She
did not interfere. They did not live long in the house
after that. Sometime after the occurrence in the kitchen
Mrs. May cam', into her house, about eight o'clock at
night. She was composed, and said Mr. May had turned
her out, and asked permission to stop until Mr. May
became less cruel. She remained until ten o'clock, when
she left. The next night she heard a disturbance,
and found that Mrs. May had brought a
policeman, in the hope that his intervention
might obtain admission for her to .her husband's
oho bre
(et.
thSaht en (ilgi 111
tn. o t
She
eo wm
might
hh et hheorwsehv ee
rs, n chcaeveed eodb
ti
ani
nheedr
admission, as a short time after she loft the house and
never returned.

Cross-examined by Mr. MARTIN—Did not know the
name of the policeman, or whether he was in attendance.
Mrs. May did not break any windows on the night in
question. She left in September, 1842. She had a ser-
vant part of the time, but she could not recollect her
name. Did got think she was in the habit of going out
at nights, nor that her sister, Mrs. Wortley, kept a public-
house in Sheffield.

Ite-examined—Had known Mrs. May for nine years,
and never knew anything against her character.
Mr. John Arnold, of Sheffield, deposed that in Sep-
tember, 1849, the defendant and his wife lived at home,
and that some talk took place in his presence with re-
spect to Mr. May allowing her some maintenance.
Mrs. May said, " Thou knows that it is no use putting
thy name to this paper, as thee does not intend to stick
to it." He said she might either consent to it or not, as
he should not live with her any more, and she consented.
She upbraided him with cruelty, and with turning her out
of doors almost in a state of nudity. lie accused her of
leaving him, and of going to places against his consent.
Tho agreement was to allow her 201. a year, and he paid
two instalments to him (witness) which he handed to
Mrs. May. Mr. May was a man of considerable pro-
perty; he had been in the button trade; he lived re-
spectably, and like a man of property.
By Mr. MARTIN—Knew that he was a man of pro-
perty from himself. He believed he did not keep a
servant, and that his daughter did the household
work whilst they lodged with him for about a year.
They appeared to live comfortably. He saw no ill-treat-
ment, and nothing amiss. When the recrimination al-
of luded
t
toteovoikeu. o
place,jheaid heard
nothear Mr. h
Mayt emention
name
an ammre.
Porter.
- Mr. Bingham corroborated- the conversation with re-
spect to the agreement.
Mr. John Wortley, Mrs. May's nephew, deposed to re-
ceiving his aunt with a black eye and a contused face,
and her saying that the injuries had been caused by Mr.