Star.
London, England, 1801-12-03 00:00:00

a. Sur ..:k: ,

I. 1::

I • ‘‘,:rt.

:. :1 • '• .t , t t :•t:clant
tv -
'060% 1.441 &LC 11.4auti LaJ ;i4n.c4i W ;,,,:Ye hin

twelve months credit, did away the etre& of
parole evidence which had been given of the plain-
tiff's having agreed to give that credit ?
Vcrdil for the Defendant.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, NOV. 30.
PERIN V. TRO*ARD.

. .
This was an action for work and labour. The
Plaintiff was a Farmer, and the Defendant an
opulent Solicitor, polfeffing eonliderable landed
property at Sunbury, where the Plaintiff refid.fd.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff to plough
up an Ozier Ayk in the Thames, for which labour
he charged about 91. and which he fought, to re-
cover by the prefent atlion. The Defendant re
filled this demand, on the ground that the charge
was exorbitant ; and in luppot t of it called feveral
witnelfes, who depofed, that they would have
ploughed it at a much cheaper price. But as it
appeared the work was attended with nnufual dif-
ficulty, from the ground being thick fet with
Rumps of trees, by which it required a greater
number of holies, and the relittance fo great that
it even broke the coulter of the plough, the Jury
thought that it merited more than the ufual price
for ploughing, and returned a Vcrdiet for the
whole of the Plaintiff's demand.

DAWSON V. CILDIRT.

This was an :talon to recover the amount of a
bill for millinery articles furnilhed by the Plaintiff
to the Defendant's Wife.

Mr. MINGAY Rated, that the Defendant was an
opulent Clergyman, and that his wife, from her
rank and Ration in life, was entitled to wear the
articles which his Client had furnithed her with,
and confequently that the hulband was bound to
pay for them. The d^livery of the goods being
proved—
Mr. ERSKINE, for the Defendant, admitted that
a man was bound to pay for the drefs of his wife,
'provided it was fuel) as accorded with his rank and
Ration. But he contended that his Client's wife had
taken thofe articles which were far beyond her
hufband's fphere, and that the Plaintiff ought not
to have given her credit for them. He defcribed
the Lady as in the wane of beauty, and the mo-
ther of level:11 children, but Ilia retaining the
molt psflionate fondness for fplendor of drefs. The
Defendant, who was a Clergyman, in eafy but
not opulent eircumflances, A:illy palled part of
the year in London, and had frequent oceafions
Ito regret his wife made that feafen an opportunity
for gratifying er tafte at the expence of his more
folid comforts.h He had paid the Plaintiff a bill
of tol. and upon that occafion lb-jelly enjoined
her not to give his wife any further•credit, bet to
deal only for ready money. • Notwithftanding this
caution, the Plaintiff again mulled her with ar-
ticles to the value of 171. and which this anion
was brought to recover. Among other things he
(fated, that after the Plaintiff' had received this
caution, the tattled her daughter, who managed
her bufinefs, to write to Mrs. Gildert, informing
iher the was about to introduce a new fafhioned
flaring hat, and hoping that (he would patronize
it bv giving her an order for one.
Mr. ERSKINE then proved the notice and the let-
ter by which the Plaintiff excited the Defendant's
wife to run in debt with her, notwithftanding the
Defendant's caution. •

Lord lisa vox obferved, if the Plaintiff could
recover her demar .1, after the had received the
notice not to mil the Lady, there could be no do-
mettic fecutilv ; and a man could never guard
Againfl the inclifcretions of his wife. It was clear
that th•. hufband was bound to pay the debts of
his ife, which were contraded for articles con-
fo :ant with her rank in life ; but it was never yet
,niagined, that if a. woman ailed indifcreetly, and
her hutband cautioned a tradefman not to deal
with her but for ready money, that after fuch
caution he was bound to pay any debt The might
contrail with that tradefman. His opinion was,
that there was not the leaft foandation for the pre.
fent aaion.—Verdid for the Defendant.