The Sun.
London, England, 1802-06-17 00:00:00

` LAW REPOT.

COURT OF KING's BENCII,. JtyNt K 6.

IiNFINGS BEFORE LORD ELLEyßoßoucf: IK GL'ILDHALLy

LO NDON

PARKER V. GELDART.

.Tuts was an aEtion to recover a sum of money
for the board and lodging of, the Defendant's Wife.
Mr. aSKINE stated, that, the Defendant was a
Clergyman residing in the North of England, and
the demand made by this anion was made fur one
quarter of a year's charge for the board and lodging
of the Defendant's wife and child, from the iBth
of April, 18ot, to the filth of July in the same
year, which was the sum 0f.341. is., 6d., and for
another, quarter for the wife may. He ,said, that
the short statement of the case was this—The De-
fendant had differences with his Lady, and they were
separated in consequence. of these 'differences., She
was left destitute of the means of suppoiting her-
self. She was a Lady of great beauty, and accom-
plishments ; had formerly Married a Gentleman, by
whom she had a child, but her first husbandliiiving
died, leaving her in possession of a large fortune,
she married a seconktime, and the Defendant was
her second husband ; yet although this Lady -was
perfectly chaste and virtuous, and although there
were children of this marriage, unhappily differ-
ences arose.between'them, and they were separated,
without any provision being made for her support :
the cOcsequenee of which was, that - she =sued her
husband in the Ecclesiastical Court -for alimony ;

. _
'but before any, decree was , pronounced,,by that
Court, in that cause, the husband agreed
.to allow
to his. wife 1501. a year, exclusive of a sum of
money to which she was entitled under the will of
rt relation, and also the use of a house in York_
sure,
.for which purpose he gave_ a bond to certain
trustees for the performance of this agreement, and
which bond was dated on the, 24th .of April last ;
but before this bond was executed, and while the
suit in the EccleSiastical Court was depending; this
Lady was_ to be supported ; she had not that sup-
port from her hirsband„ and she came to LOn—
don, and being acquainted with Mrs. Parker,- the
-plaintiff'; she was, by the recommendation of 'a
Gentleman of thltnam!'. of Brooks, lodged in the

House of Mrs. Parker, which was -a house perfetlly
respe&able in its conne&ions situated near. Ro.

chester,. a place of, absolute retirement. from the'
—bustle of public life, ,and where the society was of
'the first class of respeaability: To this. house
this Lady retired, and continued by
_the absolute
consent of her husband, - the Defendant, for h
neither had nor could have any reason to suska
her virtue; she was admitted: to be'perfe4ly chaste.,
—The Defendant saw her there once, and took
Away the, child she had taken with her at the 'tittle
of the separation, The Lady was now retired to
the house,in Yorkshire, and there were.hopes that,
in. time a reconciliation would take place between
them, and after all they might, .perhaps, live happily
together ; but, in the mean time, the expellee of
supporting this Lady until she had this separate
maintenance allowed her, must be borne by the
husband, up to the extent of his degree in life, but
certainly not beyond it; and of the truth of thisi
there was a Case conclusive upon the point—in an
ACtion brought against this very Defendant for a
Milliner's Bill for articles furnished to this Lady :

Mr. Ettsxise said, he defended this very Gentle-
man, and defended him successfully before Lord
KENYON,
.and aiury, at Westminster; when it,
appeared that the articles sold to the Lady were
either not necessaries, or were of a higher price
than was suitable to his degree in . life.—But
the prosent was not-that Case, nor was any thing
like it.—ThN was a demand Only
,for. the. board`
and lodging of this Lady; at a time when she, had
not any settled provision by he'r husband.-1-Icre
be entered upon the quption of Law as it applied
to this "Case, and quoted the authority of Lord
MANSFIELD, and also of Lord KENYON :—the
result of which he maintained to be, " That if a
husband and wife live in a state of separation by.force
of the husband, and she is sent into the world by
his violence, or goes by his consent,' he shall be.
answerable for the debts she may contrata, for such
things as are necessary to support her in a degree
suitable to the husband's condition in life.-=-That
if they were separated, and the wife had a mainte-
nance allowed her by deed or agreement, sufficient
to support her in the degree suitable to her con-.
dition in life, the husband was not liable. to answer
for any debts she might contra}, because, in that
case, she ought not to contrail any ;.and. it was
the hasiness of those who trusted her,. to. make
.themselves acquainted with her state and condition,
before they gave her any credit. But then it was
.not enough that such wife had a separate mainte-
nance,/ either allowed by agreement or secured by
, for it rust appear that it was puneually paid
On al days and times stipulated between the parties ;
for, otherwise, the wiie might starve before she
could enforce payment of her allowance,.by the pro-
cep of a Court of Justice." •
Lord ELLENBOROLGH confirmed the latter part
of this statement of the law by the following em-
phatical words—"J should think that maintenance
Would not deserve the name, if not duly paid, for
maintenance means food, and not parchment."
The material fads of the lady coming to the Plain.
tiff's house, and being there furnished with lodg_
ing, board, &c. for the above period ; of the. De-
fendant himself haVingassented to it, and expressing
his satikcadion at his wife's being .so well provided.
for, &c.; and that t this period she,had no fixed
allowance, the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for

alimony being then depending, and the bond not
given, were proved ; and therefore, under the direc.
tion of Lord ELLE,NBOROUGI, the Jury found a
verdia for the Plaintiff.—Damages, Jos.

ALLCORK • MASCALL.