The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-27 00:00:00

EARNIAIV V. CLARKE.

The Plaintiff in this case filed a bill In Equity,
praying for a decree to cause an account to he taken
of a promissory note for the payment of 1001. with
interest, which had been given by the mother of the
Defendant.
It appeared in this case, that a Gentleman, of
the surname of 'Walker, possessing a small inherit
tance near Leeds, in the County of York, left his
estate among his daughters, Eliza, Martha, and
Sarah. Martha, when she was young, married a
person of the name of Clarke, by whom she had
children. Becoming embarrassed in her circum. I
stances, she borrowed the sum of 1001. from her sister I
Eliza, for which she gave a note, promising pay-
ment on sight, being the note for which the present
Bill was filed. Some time afterwards Eliza mar-1
ried Earnshaw, the present Plaiutiff, and by a mar-'
riage settlement,' which the bridegroom has writ.
ten with his own hand, she surrendered to his jurist.
diction all and the whole of the money which she
held in the funds to a considerable amount.—Mrs.l
Earnshaw kept possession of the promissory note,
and on the death of her sister Martha, she pre-
sented it as a gift to her children, without the pri-
vity or concurrence of her husband. In the mean
time, the donor had become debilitated in body, and
her husband anticipating the probability of her
mind becoming feeble also, got a strict inquest made
into her goods, chattels, and personal property,
in the course of which, he missed the promissory
note in question. The Bill was immediately, tiled'
in Equity, and Mr. Hall appeared with Mr. 1
Martin to support it. These Learned Gentlemen !
maintained, that by an accurate examination which
they had made of the marriage settlement, Eliza
Walker had surrendered.to her husband, the Plain-
tiff, the whole of her money vested in the funds, re.
serving for herself only the land inheritance, out of
which 1151. was to be paid yearly to her husband,l
in case that he survived her. Such being the na-1
tare of the marriage settlement, they contended,
that the husband, according to an ancient proposi.
Lion in law, became immediately the manager, the
controller, and proprietor of all that money and in-
heritance which appertained to his wife, utiles.; that
she had reserved it to herself by an express stipula-
tion. Under these circumstances, the woman inhe-
rited no power to diminish by extravagant gifts the
property of her husband ; the promissory note its
questions, though the Plaintiff had permitted his wife'
Ito retain it in her possession, was, nevertheless,
wholly his property, and he had the right to recal
again, should she choose or be prevailed upon to
squander it away, without his privity or concurrence.
Therefore, they humbly submitted to their Lordships,.
that such a giving away, and cancelling of the
was an act null and void, and they prayed that the
decree might be granted.

On the part of the Defendant it was maintained,
on the express authority of several affidavits, one of
which was made by Sarah Walker, the sister of the
Plaintiff's wife, that an entire jurisdiction over the
property of Eliza Walker was not surrendered
to her husband by the marriage settlement, nor
had ever been in her contemplation. She gave
him, it was true, an authority and power over
what money she had amassed in the funds ; but
surely a promissory note could not be said to
appertain to the funds, being part of her own
private pocket-money. Besides, from a conversa-
tion that accidentally took place, on the death of
Martha Walker, between the Plaintiff and his Wife,
it appeared, that he conceived himself by rio means
entitled to the money due upon the bill. 'laving sa-
tisfied himself concerning some money that was due
to him, he enquired if hirwife had received satisfac-
tion for the promissory note that belonged to her.—
Certainly such a question was rather rematkable, if
the husband really believed that he possessed a power
over the personal property of his spouse. The hus-
band, having drawn out the marriage settlement him-
self, certainly never contemplated a jurisdiction over
her estate and pocket-money, when he particularly
described that portion of the estate'which Was to
appertain to him. They therefore maintained, that
his wile had the power of making a present of the