Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-05-06
From, q IYie London Papcr
LIABILITY OF HUSBANDS TO PAY THEIR
WIVES DEBTS.


C,,,f Of K;ny,s Bcnch--.UJntr.,ns VS.. Espi.dSSe.
This was IN action brought bv the plaintiff, who is
icweer, the defendant, VINO Is IL hlgiy
respectable Special under the Bar, the amount
Of his account for ewcIry sold to the Defendants wife
The cause sis tried at hildescX Sittings after last
rrini,, Ternl before the Lord Chief Justice Abbott
who lct two questions for the consideration Of the ury
first were the articles furnished BY the plaintiff to the
defendants wife suitable To her rank and condition III
life: Secondly the articles furnished to the decn
daut'S wife by his express implied authority? And
directed the Jury If they could those uue,tons
in the affirmative TO find verdict for the plaintiff dana
ges fl9 Gs but the learned counsel for the defendant
having submttcdtha the plaintiff ought he nou-suitcd
there evidence sufficient to warrant his Lord
ship iii letLiug the go 10 the Jury leave was
given to the plaintiffs counsel TO thee curt to set
aside the verdict and enter suit la the course
OF last Term Mr. Scarlet obtained rule, calling upon
the plaintiff 10 show why the verdict should
not be aside and new trial had or why suit
should not be entered. When the case called on
to-day, the Lord chief Justice road his the trial
from which appeared al the defendant lived IN Gui.
ford street III ready furnished house for winch h, rand
goo per annum and kept only two female servants
The defendant during the term, cfl his house AT nine
O'Clock in the morning, dincd in GRAY, Inn Hail am!
continued ut his Chambers until ten O'clock at nir
when he returned To hs private house: aud ont ,.
crin tc defendant at Chambers every dav from
ten O'clock IN the morning until vc O'Clock the even
ing M "iC hpnr nc returned To his house dinner
The defendants wife brought him l0rluucuuoe- c6O00
out of the interest of which size had an allowance Of
LOO per annum for her private use The amount u
defendants wi, N
four months. Goo, out Of which sln had made a
different times payments WHICH reduced that sum to the
amount FOR which the Jury found th. verdict II
was no cycncc to show that the plaintiff had ever in
formed MIR. ESpnassc of the amount al The purchase.
made by his wife that MIR Espinassc had eyer seen
WIS. ESpnds>e wear them but the contrary it :r-
pearcG from the evidence of the Defendants servants
uiat MIS- EspITassc tad ut her lrarc reas,,o. /.
quantity otleweIs, that they had since ever seen her
wearing additional Jewels AMI that tI, pa;,tj.F mr. ms
Shop'nan always called during AIR. - absence and
enquiFed for Mrs. aud Tor Mr.. f., and TINT on
one occasion, the plaintiff said he knew Mrs f. was
Lady possessed Of private independent property over
which hof husband had nu controuI.
Mr. Plat tins day, in showing ,,alse ARA inst ta rill,
conicnded that the questions in this cast, were question
ior the consideration o the Jury aud they .ay mo, fo,
aVerdct III favor OF the plaintiff that verdict otol; not
10 oe !ow disturbed II gentleman WISHED 10 live, in
"a dS''iotiaoe H"tGAboriood, and known TO l,,,,.,
10 the legal profession ,u.cl fora IRA sf,a -
assume that such GeuepIan ,viisiiD beygo! ms moan.
III had been sad that the utband hal never seen t
erybut OF that there evidence and the ,ct NJ t
defendant and his wife il' s together sufficient in
te absence oi all proof 50 the contrary 10 warrant the
presumption that the husband had seen It and had over
ms implied aul,oritv VICAR it. ana was therefore am
,"eI'so!c 10 pay ioI tin support Of his argument t,,
Learned CnUnsC! cited the OF Norton vs. V nh
am III S!llan'rs Reports 3Gl. which wa, an action
,'"r%;.i-aS.l.s lie defendant, who Sergeant At
law Tor LII Tor silver rIngeS FOR prtticoat and -,j.
s"3dle sod to tie Defendants w,. Without hi, ki.,,y
I'c' in mat case although il had been proved r:ar
me HefcntanI's wife sani She womb run him 600 into
I l. - tNtf
next Term, the Court hcld thai u, tic. article. ,v,,,
co 10 The rank aud degree Of the defendants wife and
as tie plaintiff was Ignorant OF tie disagreement he
tween them the defendant was Liable
Mr. Scar!ctt-he should shortly state f., The Court t;
reason for submitting that dat rule be made at,,o
"'e ~ one or other q" the ways Which IL was drawn
p' pI' h,"rc fie dbl so, he would d,p OF the case
'''e! oy W.T. P!atf, stating that although il might be
considered that silver fringe for sdcsl,ldle ,ni,rA he
s"ti"e TO The rank degree of the wife Of Sergeant
at i'"' ana not therefore, follow that exprnijt IRE
= IN r.,
suhahIe to tic rank and degree of a yf, of a Spe,i,
'ea1ci' ie ge3erai rule vas that wife NAV charge
ef husband "ith those thDg> which it NAV be-, Implied
hcr husband gave her permission 10 purchase bnt for
nothing else To :liis general ue there were some ey
@Puo'S-Sn"h as neccssaEcs, provisions consumed in
hease Keeping, and things Of that description Thc
learned counsel then cOntcnded that there was no 90
ae"ce to show that this purchase ofjcwery came within
nc exception 10 tic general rnle
W. Curney rose at the time int was sfona7l
o} their 'ordhiPs, who, having consulted together for
Re" minutes informed ir. Quincy that he need moi
make any additional Observations
va justice bag I"y-t seems to that in this par
l'o"a' case there was no evidence go TO the Jury
no evidence to cattle the pilntif 10 verdict In scI
cases rs the present, take tic .llc m la,y Ia he
II man tnn his wife out Of doors without any ns.if,
'o c"u7, or hcr part; he Is bound by her contract for
neccssaIeS; but where tic husband aud -; ii, i've tor
lher ana The husband doe, Supply her viii, pcc
sarlcs although strictly her rctncly w01,I bc in tb
'PHnai Court, yet IT might be held that he !. answer
""ic Tor ncccssares; but whore the husband and wifi.
!,
hocessarcs, the husband is not bound BIZ tho r
MS "ic' unless there be reasonable evidence to show
IVA" sh entered into such contracts b, the consent OF
~ ana mat she was lbs agent Cor that nurposc
IT IS IN evidence that this lady brouc-it , ol,,la
pTllnc nnder CG0OO, out Of wlc! she has an allowance
% ~ year. is II not TO be presumed that husband
"C' 'ol Keep man servant, who occupi s = J;;sc
p"uy ufpistcd-CoU!d il be supposed that my chad
~ ms senses who, like the defendant was vorlsin !
~ ,"' maintenance of his wife and lrnly would eeive
~ consent or authority 20 his wife TO lax out in il.
space oil tour months, t'ic sum Of goo imora ~,
aH ''e interest Of her fortunc) in The purchase ,, a.
49, necessary Tor her or any member Of his f,,n;l,
ooa IN I've purchase Of articles, which according 70 6
" I we're IN ms case suPeiIncs3 Such ino,
cannot he presumed. DO not moan to Sac liza. ,i-
jury would not have found a similar verdict. or l,f fLc
'cct was improper but think there was mo evidence
TO go 90 jury. '''0'''e
Mr. Justice Ioroyd and Nh Justice rif1o, nj, ,u,
Of The same opinion ''0 u ''e
ne Lo'o lhie Justice. crlircr agreed in oo;n
D WIN NY learned brothers, ami tins ruic for = non
g f L.