Star.
London, England, 1820-12-01 00:00:00

LAW INTAaIMCE.

_ I

COURT QF RING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER Et.
• ,
MARE'S 9. COLEMAN.
The defendant in this•case was the proprietor of a
cook-shop, in which he had placed the plaintiff, to
carry on the business for a time, at a weekly salary,
and in the meantime to try and dispose of the con-
cern. Whilst the plaintiff was in this situation, the
cook to the establishment gave up her situation, and
the defendant applied to Mrs. Marks to fill up this
situation, stating, that he would make her a fair re-
muneration. Mrs. Marks continued to .oBiciate as
cook for thirteen weeks ; at the expiration of n•hich,
the shop not letting, the' defendant determined to
shut it up, and the further services of Mr. and Mrs.
Marks were dispensed with. Mrs. Marks then ap-
plied for the promised remuneration for her services,
whilst she presided in the culinar y departmeue. To
her surprise, however, the defendant denied that she
had any demand upon him, as he considered her la-
bours remunerated by the sum paid to her husband.
Upon this being persisted in, the plaintiff brought
the present action to recover £5 4s. as a remunera-
tion for thirteen weeks service, at Ss. a week. These

facts were proved on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the defendant, called tio evi-
dence, but left it to the Jury to say, whether this
was a probable case, and whether, as-men of plain
common sense, they could -believe the plaintiff, in
his weekly settlements with the defendant, failed to
take up his wife's wages as well is his own.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages £5 4s.
and costs 40s.
The others were undefended causes of no interest.
The Court rose at two o'clock, his Lordship having
to attend a Council.
COURT OF ARCHES.
REES V. REES.
This was an appeal from the Consistory Court of
Bristol, on the ground of an alleged grievance in the
allotment of alimony. It was originally a suit brought
by the wife against the husband for separation, by
reason of adultery..
Sir J. NICHOL, after stating the nature of the ap-
plication, and the grievance complained of, proceeded
to revert to the circumstances of the case. The par-
ties were married in May, -1803, and lived together
until 1814; during which they had a large family,
seven children being now alive. Mrs. Rees, the wife,
had in her employ a young Lady, as Governess, and
with this person the husband was alleged to have
committed adultery. The libel stated different acts,
and finally, that the parties left Carmarthen, the seat
of Mr. Rees, and went to reside at Bristol, under
feigned names, and cohabited together as man and
wife. It had been truly stated, that there was no
certain rule laid down by which the Court could
be guided in the allotment of alimony ; it waken-
tirely a matter of discretion, governed certainly by
an equitable and fair view of the circumstances of the
case. Where the suit was brought against the wife,
it was universally the impreision on the mind of the
Court, that she should seek that reserved and decent
retirement which became an innocent wife, while
under the imputation of such heavy and responsi-
ble charges ; it was under impressions of this na-'
ture that it granted a small alimony, pending thc
suit ; it was done with the view of compelling, ir
necessary, the seclusion of the party, such Seclusion
being required by all rules of propriety, and all sense
of decency. This was not a case of cruelty, where
the circumstances differed most materially ; these
-cases were generally burthened with a combination'
of equivocal assertions, which frequently ended'in
the failure of proof; but here was a direct charge'
'of gross and continued adultery, committed first in
the house of the husband, and corroborated strongly
by the desertion of his wife, accompanied by the ob-
ject of his illicit intercourse. The suit had been de,
pending four years, during which time offers of com-
promise were made. It was certainly very probable
that the wife, the mother of seven children, should
be highly desirous, on account of these children, to
prevent any exposure of her injuries. It might be
urged on this account, that the charges were ground-
less ; but it must be recollected, that the husband
joined in these treaties for compromise, and after
they were at an end, be suffered a considerable time
to elapse before he put in a defensive allegation.
This of Itself was a circumstance which created
some suspicion in the mind of the Court, for if the
charges had been unfounded, it was hardly to be
conceived that a single Court-day would have elapsed
[before such an allegation would have been brought in.
Then as to the application of alimony, there the
wife had been guilty of a very gross delay, for it
appeared that the application was not made until
upwards of two years after the citation 'had been
returned, which was a delay not easily to be ac•
counted for. The allegation of faculty stated the pro-
perty of the husband to amount to £l,BOO a-year,
which was positively and flatly denied by the answers;,
it was admitted, that afterall deduction, such as tales,
ice. the clear income of the-party amounted to RIMS
19s. 3d. Out of this, it was said, he had to maintain
the seven children now living, besides the salary
of the steward to the estate, and other expenses,
independently of which he states himself to be con-
siderably in debt. Now as the Court had no certain
rule by which it could guide its opinion in the pro-
portion of alimony to be allotted, it was not neces-
sary to enter into a minute examination of. the in-
come, .altheugh in this -case it certainly must give
the husband the credit of having made every possible
deduction, especial]' where the accounts seem to have
been balanced with such nicety ; for he actually con-
fines the amount of This income to shillings and pence.
Out of this income of C 1,01.5 19s. 3d. he claims a
deduction for annuities granted to the amount of
1:540. It was stated as an objection to the allot-
ment of the Court below, that the wife was possessed
of £350 a-year (only a life interest in:it) by a legacy
left by her father. The Court below evidently took
this cirtumstanceinto its consideration when it made
the allotment of £lOO a-year, otherwise it would have
granted a larger sum. He knew of no such rule as
that mentioned by Counsel of one-sixth of the pro-
perty being granted in cases of this nature; there
might have been cases where this proportion was al-
lotted, but there was certainly no 'general rule which
regulated it. In cases of cruelty for instance, it might
have been adopted, but he conceived that in those of
adultery, the allotment was much higher than one;
sixth, especially where the husband was the aggressor.
As to Liu: i.roperty of the wife, the Court could never

I

44nside/ that iothe same light as the:prop_eitt of thel
husband,otherwise, where parties of tile samkincome'
intermarried, and each retaining their separate interest
in that income, the husband might commit number-
less breaches of the marriage vow with impunity ;
there was a great distinction between the entire pro-
perty of the husband, and the separate property of the
wife, Looking at all the circumstances, he would be
very unwilling to disturb the sentence of the Court be-
low, but he could not help referring to the delay which
the wife ha4l been guilty of in her application to the
Court for alimony, the citation had now been returned
four years, and, it was not until two years after that
return that the application was made. The Court
below had thought proper to order this £lOO a-year
to be paid from the time of bringing in this citation;
but he, the Learned Judge, could not feel disposed to
go this length, but he must still recollect that the
wife had been under the necessity of prosecuting this
suit, and must.necessarily have been.put to consider-
able expenses beyond those allowed on the mere tax-
ation of costs, especially where the scene of action
was so distant from the neighbourhood of her resi-
dence, she residing at Carmarthen, and the suit pro-
secuted at Bristol, the suit having also extended to a
considerable length. Under all the circumstances,
therefore, the Court was of opinion, that the only fair
and equitable course it could pursue, would be to re-
verse that part of the sentence which directed the allot-
ment to be paid from the return of the citation, and
directed it to commence from the time of the Decree
being made for such allotment of £lOO a-year.