HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0548 and id is 1 raw text is: 1 ESP. 4& HODGES V. HODGES 413
They contained an account of the bankrupt's absconding to avoid his creditors, and
the time when; which his Lordship ruled to be sufficient, on the witnesses affirming
that the facts were as there stated.
The plaintiff recovered.
Mingay and Russel for the plaintiff.
Erskine for the defendant.
Thursday, Feb. 25th.
HODGES V. HODGES.
(Where a wife is, by the ill-treatment of the husband, forced to leave his house, she
shall carry with her credit for necessaries and the husband be liable.)
[S. C. Peake Add. Cas. 79.]
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, who was son to the
defendant, to recover a sum of money for the board and maintenance of his mother,
the defendant's wife.
The plaintiff's case was, that the wife had been compelled to leave her husband
the defendant's house, in consequence of gross ill-treatment and cruelty.
Evidence was given to this effect ; but it appeared that she had voluntarily left
the defendant's house, though it proceeded from apprehensions of.his ill-treatment
and barbarity.
It was contended, for the defendant, that though, in case the husband turns the
wife out of doors, he sends with her credit [442] for necessaries, the rule of law did
not apply where she voluntarily quitted it.
Lord Kenyon said, that where a wife's situation in her husband's house was
rendered unsafe from his cruelty or ill-treatment, he should rule it to be equivalent
to a turning her out of the house; and that the husband should be liable for
necessaries furnished to her under those circumstances.
The parties compromised this action in Court.
Erskine and Lawes for the plaintiff.
Mingay and Lambe for the defendant.
Same day.
WOOD V. WAIN.
(In an action on the case, for giving a false character, it is not sufficient to charge
the defendant with knowledge that the party recommended was in had circum-
stances, that he (the defendant) had himself arrested him ; and the defendant
may go into evidence to explain the circumstances.)
This was a special action on the case, to recover damages from the defendant,
for having given a character of one Harris, that he was a good and solvent man, and
might be trusted; in [443] consequence of 'which the plaintiff did give him a con-
siderable quantity of goods on credit, the defendant at the same time knowing that
he was insolvent and in bad circumstances; by reason of which (Harris having
absconded) the plaintiff lost the price of the goods.
It was proved that on the 15th of October 1795, Harris came to the plaintiff's
shop to buy goods, and referred the plaintiff to the defendant. On application to
him, the defendant informed the plaintiff that Harris had done much business with
him, and was then doing business with him, and was a good man.
Harris afterwards absconded.
The plaintiff further gave in evidence, that on the 4th of September preceding,
the defendant had himself arrested Harris for a debt then due to him and his partner,
and relied on this as sufficient evidence of knowledge of Harris's circumstances being
then embarrassed, and that of course a character of solvency afterwards given, was
knowingly a false one.
For the defendant, it was relied, that though the fact was true, he was at liberty
to explain it : which he did by stating, that having heard by. accident that Harris
had been seen in company with some persons who had been taken up as swindlers,
he and his partner had, without any inquiry or deliberation, immediately arrested
him; but that the circumstance was afterwards explained by a Mr. Parrels, who had
offered to become security ; and that the whole of the debt then due to them was
discharged by Harris himself, and they still continued to deal with him on credit
and that in fact Harris had absconded in their debt.
[444] It was contended, that all this transaction should have been disclosed to
the plaintiff, from whence he might have drawn his own conclusions.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0548&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)