The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1912-01-18
JOHN O. SCHENK
wins HIS CASE
~ DECISION handed DOWN YES
TeaoAN sV JUDGE sEseITT.
SIT Ma fer Money CIs,~es 20 De
Due tire AntIer for Meals
Furnishes Mrs. Senerk.

In an opinion handed down yester
day by Judge Nesbiit In the circuit
court. the case Of Stoops 4 Nichols
VI John q. Schenk Was disposed Of.
the judge finding for the defendant
The suit was Tor the sum OF xItsl
lain TO be due the plaintIrs Tor
meals furnished Mrs. Scnenk during
her confinement la the county jaii.
charged with the poisoning OF her
husband.
Since the time the suit was filed
much interest has been manifested
In the case. and IL has attracted con.
siderable attention. The case was
submitted to Judge Nesbitt on BRIEFS
by the attorneys for both sides and
the matter was settled yesterday
when h Judge rendered his decision
in favor OF Mr.. Schenk. Attorneys
j.. B. Handlan and Fred l.. Maury'
represented Mr. Schenk in the action
and Attorney 5. o. Boyce the plain.
tifs.
In his opinion. Judge Nesbiu says:
The cases see TO argue that IN
order TO charge the husband for the
contracts OF his wife. circumstances
must be shown which either raise an
AZ VI dEfaNN vi punt W lut
violation by him oil his duty 10 fur
nish her with support suitable TO
their station I'm life"
Continuing, the opinion says:
The right OF the wife TO pledge
the husbands credit. when unsup-
piled by him. is generally founded
upon the doctrine OF the wife's i'm
piled agency. Some have called il
AN agency OF necessity. But IL is per
haps a cleared view TO regard it IA
n personal. inherent right OF the wife
recognized by law. when the husband
fails in the duty imposed by the law
upon him. since If n-ecessaries are
furnished the wife even against the
husbands will. he is liable. when he
refuses OF ncglects TO furnish them :"
II eye. l2l7.
Il deem II unnecessary TO cite
other authorities along this line. The
proportions are elementary.
Now. in the case at bar there was
no showing 10 indicate that the de
PENDANT in any way failed in his duty
TO supply his wife with n~ecessaries.
Indeed. the evidence was decidedly
contrary to any such view. IL was
clearly proven that he furnished her
with the best the market affords.
When the plaintiffs assumed to
furnish Mrs. Schenk with meals. they
made no effort To ascertain II the de
PENDANT desired to have them do so.
They did not ascertain whether he
would permit meals TO be sent from
the home which he so a~bundantly
supplied. They voluntarily obstructed
themselves between husband and
wife and assumed To furnish those
things which it does not appear hat
the defendant was not ready and will
ing TO furnish.
Il am satisfied tina the practically
unanimous OF. uion Of the authorities
L. well expressed in the syllabus "
Hoard OF Supervisors ~. Budlons. 81
Barb. 81. - i93. where the court
says.
"A husband who is ready. able
! and willing 10 support his wife. and
who gives her no just cause or oc-
casion TO abandon him or lea:c his
! bed and board. cannot be compelled
10 support her c~lsewher" than at his
own hous" or home. IL ne has one.
by any priVat" person. or ~ IT." town
or cunt whether she be sane or
insane Ills liability for n~ccessaries
provided 10y Other persons for her
support rests entirely upon the
ground %: his n"si-c, or default
On conclusion trc IIdro stated -ha'
90 ID JUST 80 Iu N.~' Nrrc MIS- th. Lrv
docs ~ necessarily hold 'ne husband
lah'" f'r r"r.-~lrfr- voluntarily tur
r'~i.t 'l- vi'. 1 county fr.l st.r-
a' Pas beech removed Dos F. process
o. Iaa TO- -l. ub--rc. of lu, show ~
On r.l", o. .u' an DIS part The