The Sun.
London, England, 1802-12-27 00:00:00

1-IINDER v. POOLE.

This was an action for money lent and advanced
• and for necessaries found by the Plaintiff for the
..Defendant's wife, in his absence, and by -his au-
, thority.
Mr. Ettsxtras said, that the Plaintiff had kept a
Public-house in the neighbourhood of the London
Wet Docks, which he W3S obliged to quit on ac-
count of his house being wanted-for those Docks.
The Defendant was the Captain of a vessel, and
having occasion to go to the West Indies, he left
his wife without money or means of subsistence,
and therefore-applied to the Plaintiff who, then kept
this Public house.- By the- law of England, the
husband is liable, up to his degree in, lite, for ne-
cessaries supplied to her in his absence, for in- that
case a promise made by her to pay, is considered as
a proMise made by the husband ; but without ex-
press authority; the husband,
.was not. bound 'for
money lent to the wife; hoWever, if money was lent-
rhe wife without the knowledge of the husband,
and Ile afterwards adopted the ad, anti promised to
pay the money, that would have the circa of art an-
tecedent authority to lend the money. This was the
Case :here. The Defendant left-his wife as he had
itked, and the Plaintiff had supplied her with beer
and other necessaries-to the amount of 615,-16s. 6d.
ind had lent and advanced her money,- making the
whole ial. i as. ;. and in a conversation which he
had with the Attorney.for, the ,Plaintiff, after the
anion had been brought, he offered to pay the whole,
bill except ass., which-he said was an over-charge,
lie-having had another bill delivered to him by. the'
:Plaintiff; zss. less thari the present.
It appeared in evidence; that the 'Defendant's.
wife had the Beer delivered' to her as stated, and
that the Defendant,- after he came home, had in-
. quired after the, Plaintiff, -who had -gone into
lodgings at Greenwich, and had adMitted:that he
awed him a Bill. It then appeared,:that the De-
fendant called on Mr. Shee, the Plaintiff's Attor-
ney, to ask the'amount of the Bill. The Attorney 1
,told hint the amount ; the Defendant's answer was,
that the Bill was not right, for that it was five or
six and twenty shillings more than the Bill which
the Plaintiff had 'delivered to him. He said he
would have paid it in a Moment, if the Plaintiff had
not arrested him without -so 'math as calling on
hiM for paYment of the money, and he said, that he
,would pay the Bill immediately if the Attorney
would dedua the twenty-five-shillings. The- At-
torney arwered, that he would write to his
Client and inform him of this, but' that he had no:
instruaions to take a shitlingless than the whole
amount of the Bill, The Bill was then delivered
in, by which it appeared, that the Beer, &c. were
furniShed from the 3d of August to the 1-rth of
October, which came to 61. 163. 6d. and the rest
was for money lent to the wife of the Defendant.
Mr. Gfaus, on the'part of the Defendant, said,
there was no doubt, that when a married man goes
abroad, 'leaving his wife destitute of supply, those
who supplied her with necessaries had a legal claim
on the husband to the amotint of such necessaries ;
but it was equally clear, that if any one supplied
.the wife with any thing that was not necessary,
but suppOrted her in an intemperate mode of life,
a person so supplying her, could not recover from
the. huiband. The course of the Defence in this
Case was this: That the Plaintiff had no authority
ta lend the Defendant's wife any'trioney whatever.
That the Plaintiff Supplied her voluntarily with that,
and with liquor 'in a very Improper manner. He
should prove that the life which this woman led
was most dissolute, and that it was so to the know-
ledge of the Plaintiff. Thit he declared she was'
the hest customer he had : that no one could drink
as mochas she could, and .what she could not drink
herself, she 'gave to others. Under such circum,
stances hiS Lordship would tell the Jury that the
Defendant was not bound to pay. , '