The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-24 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS,

(S tangs at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice Wailes and a
Common Jury.)
HARRIS V. COUPE.-RUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a lodging-
house keeper, to recover 33/. of the defendant, expenses
incurred by his wife for lodgings.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff was a
lodging-house keeper, residing at 55, Gloucester-place,
Portman-square, and the defendant formerly one of the
committee of Drury-lane Theatre, and a member of the
Garrick Club. The defendant at the time of his mar-
riag() in 1837 was a gentleman of considerable property
and expectations, and in 1848, when he and his wife
separated, was in a position to make her a large allow-
ance, and which allowance was paid with more or less
regularity till 1854. In that, year the defendant got
embarrassed from railway and agricultural speculations,
and assisting a friend by putting his name to bills to the
amount of 28,0001. He was arrested for debt, and in
July of that year he petitioned the Insolvent Court, but
was not discharged, and had again on the 29th May,
1855, to petition the court, when he obtained his dis-
charge. In March, 1855, when the defendant • was
under aereAt, his brother agreed to allow him
60!. per quarter, and the defendant informed
his wife of it,. informing her that he would allow
her half of it, 301. per quarter, which he would pay over
to his solicitor for her, provided she would promise not
to go beyond that amount, and involve him in difficulties.
His wife consented to take the money, but would not
bind herself to live within that amount, and immediately
after engaged these lodgings, to pay for them from March
till July, including firing, 21. per week, and from that
period 1/. per week. The wife, being a lady of high
family when married, expected to be supported whilst
separated from her husband, no matter what his means,
in a manner suitable to her fareily position. On the
part of the defendant it was contended that he had al-
lowed his wife a fair portion of his income, and that he
was not liable for any debts she might contract beyond
that amount. It was explaiced that the defendant ceased
to be a member of. the Drury-lane committee in 1854,
and that after his insolvency his brother paid his sub-
scription to the Garrick Club.

The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the
jury, said this was a mixed question of law and of fact.
A. wife, so long as she lived with her husband, was his
agent to pledge his credit for necessaries suitable to her
husband's means and position, and nob extravagancies,
and if they separated by consent, without specified
means being allowed the wife, still retain her authority.
If, however, a separation took place without consent, or
without cause of separation, from misconduct on the part
of the husband, she had no authority to pledge her hus-
band's credit, and in this case the plaintiff had failed to
prove the misconduct imputed to the defendant. With
regard to the supposition that a lady of distinction had
a right to be maintained in that position, notwithstand-
ing her husband's circumstances, was a mistaken one,
and contrary even to what they earned from the mar-
riage service, when the contracting parties agreed to take
each other " for better or for worse." It was the
duty of the wife to submit to the husband's fate, and not
run him into difficulties for her extravagancies; neither
would the law permit such conduct on the part of the
wife. The question of fact for their consideration was,
whether or not the allowance made by the defendant to
his wife was sufficient, according to his circumstances,
when the debt was first contracted, and were these
lodgings a necessary suitable to the husband's means
and position.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and had not
returned when our despatch left.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

:Sittings in Banea before Lord Campbell, Justices
Coleridge, Wightinan, and CrDropten.)

THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF ARCHDEACON DENI-
SON V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

This morning was appointed for hearing arguments
in this case. Last term a rule was granted calling on the
Archbishop to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue, directed to him, commanding him to
require by writing, under his hand, the Venerable
George Anthony Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton and
Vicar of East Brent, in the county of Somerset and in
the diocese of Bath and Wells, to appear either in per-
son, or by his agent duly appointed before him, at a
time and place therein named, according to the provi-
sions of the statute of the 3d and 4th Vict., c. 86 ; and,
further, to proceed in the matter of the said affidavits
mentioned in the charge or complaint of the said Rev.
Joseph Ditcher, against the said Archdeacon Denison,
according to law.
Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Sumner showed cause against
the rule ; Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Badderley supported
the rule ; and Mr. Hill, Q.C., appeared on the part of
Archdeacon Denison.
The point in dispute turned on the discretionary
power of the Archbishop in proceeding or not further in
the inquiry. Whether, in fact, having instituted initia-
tory proceedings, he was not bound to go on and de-
liver judgment in the case ?
Mr. Hill, in the course of his remarks to the Court,
said that Archdeacon Denison wai ready at any time to
appear before a legally-constituted tribunal, and answer
the charges that had been brought against him.
After hearing Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Sumner,
Lord Campbell, after a short conference with the other
learned judges, and without hearing Sir F. Kelly, said—
We are all of opinion that the rule ehGuld be made ab-
solute ; but that, if the parties wish it and will be bound
by it, we are ready to express our deliberate opinions on
the question. Otherwise, all I shall now say is that
sufficient grounds have been shown for the issuing of
the mandamus.

Sir F. Kelly—l shall probably best discharge my
duty by at once acquiescing in what has fallen from
your lordship, that this rule should be made absolute.
I must, however, say and acknowledge with perfect sin-
cerity that the Archbishop of C iriterbury has been
actuated in all he has done with °pante fide, and with
an earnest desire at once to do justice and to promote
the best interests of the Church over which he presides.
Lord Campbell—There is not the smallest doubt but
that his grace has so proceeded ; but with profound re-
spect and reverence for the sacred character and position
of his grace, I must express some regret that his grace
did not in the first instance exercise his discretion
by refusing to proceed in the complaint of the Rev. J.
Ditcher. Had he done so, and followed the example of
the late and present Bishop of Bath and Wells, I think
it would have been well for the Church of England.
Rule made absolute.

By this decision the Archbishop of Canterbury will
have to proceed in the inquiry, and, if possible, decide
the question that has so long agitated the minds of the
people of this country, which is the true doctrine of the
Church of England—that advocated by the Tractarians
or the Evangelicals.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN RE STRAHAN, PAUL, AND QO.-JUDGMENT ON PETITION
OF THE. REV. It. SNOW.
His Honour this day gave judgment on the petition
which was presented a few days since, praying that cer-
tain shares in the Sambre Railway Company should be
delivered up to him by the lessees. The facts were
these :—The bankrupt Strahau was one of the executors
under the will of Mrs. Snow, who directed an invest-
ment of the surplus of her estate, after payment of her
debts, in the public funds or out real securities in Eog-
landlor Wales, and accordingly a sum of 10,295/. was
invested in the 3 per Cent. Consols ; but with a
view of raising the interest, Strahan and his
co-trustee sold one and lent the money to
the firm, receiving two policies o f insurance on the life of
Sir John Paul, and placed the policies away without any
note, depositing also the shares as a security for the trust
money. On the death of Sir John Paul in 1835 the
banking-house received the amount of the policies from
the insurantte offices, and applied them to their own use.
From the evidence it appeared that he made no commu-
nication to his partner, and on the bankruptcy the
shares were taken by the assignees as property at the
use and under the control of the b ankrupts.
His Honour held that the shares could not be cansi-
dered to have been transferred to the executors either in
law or in equity, as there was no deposit note or notice
to the company ; but even if he entre of opinion that the
shares were conveyed legally to the trustee, he should
consider that, under the circumstances of the case, they
passed to the assignees under the C, V3B of Burbridge v.
Deacon 131.
A second petition by the same petitioner, in respect of
500 shares in the Namur Railway Company, was also
decided in favour of the assignee.
His Honour asked whether the shares were of any
value ?
Mr. Lawrance said he believed they were worth some
thousands.