The evening world., 1904-07-05
Appellate Term OF Supreme
Court Hands Down Decision
Which viii Save Money for
Some Husbands.
REFERS TO DEBTS INCURRED
DURING DIVORCE CONTEST.
Decision Rendered on Appeal
from Judgment in Favor Of
Firm That Supplied Wife with
Groceries During Litigation.

The Appellate Term ~ the Supreme
Court has handed down decision In
which It Il held that a husband who
has been directed 10 pay his wife
alimony BY the Court pending the de-
termination OF a divorce suit, need not
also pay bills contracted by his wife
during the litigation,
The decision was rendered on an
appeal from a judgment Of the Munici-
"a Court In favor OF Meyer brothers
for t33l9 against Col. James A. Jewell,
formerly member Of the Board OF
United States Appraisers, for groceries
supplied Mrs. jewell From this rul-
hg jewell appealed and reversed the
Judgment OF the Court below. The ie-
cislon OF the Appellate Term Is written
by Justice Macl.oan, who saws
Resides an advance Of so, no, neces-
sary to b, considered. this action was
brough, to recover the value of GER
tain supplies alleged to have been fur
nished BY the plaintiffs to the de-
fendart between April II and MAY s.
1909. and Of the value OF t3ls On this
appeal the defendant contends that the
plaintiff failed to prove any cause Of
action against the defendant.
Nife's Declaration Inconpetent.
THE only thing to show delivery was
an assertion ot one Of the plaintiffs
evidently not upon knowledge. that he
knew they were sent, and by the mar
ration by the same witness OF a con-
versatlon with the defendants wife,
who, upon inquiry said she was salts
Ned shs got the goods and that she
knew the goods we're delivered
Her declaration, distinct from the
transaction ot the purchase or delivery
OF the goods, was Incompetent as evil
dence against the husband to show de-
livery. As 10 the value OF the goods,
the same witness stated the amount OF
the bill, but did not try to prove their
value or that they had any. To war
rant Judgment II Was requisite to
prove either an agreement TO pay
specific price or their market value.
II, would appear, too. that the claim
against the DESCENDANT was an after
thought and that no credit was given
for the same, plaintiff testifying he
asked Mrs Jewell for the money. and
was told by her that she was not is-
sponsible for the bill and thai Mr.. Jew.
el would pay II.
Motion should he Dismissed.
Upon this failure Of proof OF a cause
% action against the defendant the
motion 10 dismiss the complaint should
have been granted This was not done
and the defendant excepted. As an af-
firmatfve defense the defendant offered
to prove that the parties were not liy-
ing together. that the defendant had
brought an action for divorce. and that
the defer dant had. bv wav Of alimony
furnished his wife With sum sufficient
TO supply her needs
Questions to elicit evidence OF these
facts were at first excluded. the Cour:
stating You must prove actual notice
to the plaintiffs that thev should not
furnish any more goods. ard ruling thai
aymC M Of al'mOnv Tor rerlcd covered
by the bill of particulars In the cause
OF action was immaterial unless Won
show that the plaintiff had received no.
tice before that not TO furnish the
goods
was finally received. but without avail
under the prejudice Of the learned
Justice, who unwarrantedly placed
upon the defendant the burden OF la
blllty alleged. unless he showed tina,
The plaintiff knew or had reason 10
know that the husband and wife were
living apart and that the husband was
making a sufficient allowance Tor her
This Is not the law, The Judgment
should he reversed with costs 10 the
appellant TO ABIDE the event"