296 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1S14. 



the most expedient, but the only 

 practicable way of proving words. 



Court of Common Pleas. — Sa- 

 turduy, Dec. '6. — Wood v. Fletcher : 

 — Separate Maintenunce. — 31r, 

 Serjeant Lens stated, that this was 

 an aciion brought by tiie plaintiff, 

 who was a considerable coal- 

 dealer, to recover of the defend- 

 ant, a merchant in the city, the 

 very small sum of 22/. for seven 

 chahlriin of coals furnished to iMrs. 

 Fletcher. The f:icts were these. 

 Sir. and Mrs. Fletcher had for 

 some jears been separated irom 

 each oilier. The lady lived in 

 Dean-street, Park-lane, and Mr. 

 F. resided at Eaiin*^. He should 

 prove that the coals were delivered 

 at Mrs. F.'s house, and as it could 

 not be conlended that they were 

 not a necessary, the husband was 

 bound to pay for them. 



'1 hedelivery of tbecoalswas prov- 

 ed. Mrs. F. gave the order for them, 

 and the credit was given to her, 

 and not to her husband. It ap- 

 peared she had dealt with the 

 plaintiff seven years, and had paid 

 regularly, with the exception of 

 the articles in question ; but when 

 the plaintiff last applied for pay- 

 ment, she referred him to her hus- 

 band. It appeared that Mrs. F. 

 had a complete establishment of 

 her own, that she kept a house and 

 servants'", and must have been al- 

 lowed a separate maintenance ; 

 but it was proved, that such main- 

 tenance was not secured to her by 

 deed. It was stated, that her hus- 

 band paid two suras of 75/. to her 

 agent about the time this debt v.as 

 contracted. 



Mr. Serjeant Best, on these facts, 

 conteadcd defendant was not 

 liable. 



The Chief Justice said, there 

 was no case in the books that ex- 

 actly resembled the present one. 

 He must, therefore, decide it as 

 well as he could upon the princi- 

 ples laid down in other casts. 

 The authorities were not all re- 

 concilable to each other : but thus 

 far had been decided, that if there 

 was a separate maintenance, if the 

 money was regularly paid, and the 

 husband and wife lived separate 

 from each othei', the husband was 

 not answerable for the debts which 

 the wife mi^ht contract. Now, 

 what were the facts of this case } 

 It appeared, that the lady had, for 

 the last seven years, been resident 

 separate fron* her husband in the 

 liouse whicii she inhabited, and to 

 which the plaintiff had for that 

 period been accustomed to send 

 his goods. It appeared, that she 

 had not ordered them as a mar- 

 ried woman ; that during the 

 7 years she had paid the plaintiff 

 herself; that the plaintiff had 

 never any intimation of her being 

 a married woman, till long after 

 she had ordered the goods as a 

 single woman. When the bill 

 was sent in, she then, for the first 

 time, refused to pay it, on the score 

 that she was a marritd woman. 

 He had before stated, if the wife 

 had a separate maintenance regu- 

 larly paid, that the husband had 

 been held not to be answerable. 

 The facts proved were, that the 

 husband and wife had lived sepa- 

 rately ; that certain payments had 

 been made by the husband to the 

 wife; that the husband for seven 

 years hud never been called upon 

 by the tradesmen, who sent in 

 goods to the wife, but that they 

 had always been paid for by her ; 

 that two sums of 75/. had been 



