And the court of K. B. refused a

7, though it introduces new matter, con-though after the child is gone home for cludes to the country. The plaintiff, the holidays, the debt is not barred by a therefore, has no opportunity of replying certificate. Parslow v. Dearlove, 5 Esp. the subsequent promise. Vide Miles v. 78. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803. Williams, 1 P. Wms. 249, 58. 192. But if the promise be only con- rule to set aside a verdict for the plainditional, the plaintiff must declare spe- tiff. Ibid. and 4 East, 438. S. C. I cially, and prove the condition performed. Smith, 281. Penn v. Bennett, gent. one, &c. 4 Campb. 205. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815.

And see ante, C. 40.

200. A note is sent to a banker with

N. This case is represented as pro- a letter, stating it to be a security, and to ceeding on a mis-statement as to the be delivered to the payee upon a conform of the plea of bankruptcy. tingency, no cause of action accrues un

193. A promise of payment made by til the event has happened so as to be a bankrupt to a creditor, before he has barred by the stat. Savage v. Aldren, 2 obtained his certificate, is sufficient to Stark. 232. Ellenborough, C. J. 1817. revive the debt. Roberts, assignee of 201. Grantor of annuity becomes Robertson, v. Morgan, 2 Esp. 736. Eyre, bankrupt. The annuity is set aside for C. J. 1799. a defect in the memorial, after he has

194. And such promise is not de-obtained his certificate. This is a bar stroyed by the certificate obtained after-to an action by the grantee, to recover wards. Ibid. back the consideration. Walker v. Liscarray, 6 Esp. 98. Ellenborough, C.J. 1807.

And see Ernst v. Sciaccaluga, Cowp.

527.

195. Where no notice to dispute is N. As to the effect of the bankruptgiven, a deposition stating an admission cy and certificate of one of several jointby the bankrupt of having committed an grantors, under 49 Geo. 3. cap. 121, §17; act of bankruptcy, is insufficient, unless see Baxter v. Nichols, 4 Taunt. 90; shewn to have been contemporaneously Page v. Bussell, 2 M. and S. 551. with, or immediately subsequent to, 202. A promise to pay a weekly sum such act of bankruptcy. Marsh and an- for the support of an illegitimate child, other, assignees, v. Meager, 1 Stark. 353. is not barred by certificate, except as to Ellenborough, C. J. 1816. the arrears due at the time of the bank

196. A general assertion by a certifi-ruptcy. Millen, spinster, v. Whittencated bankrupt, that he will pay every bury, 1 Campb. 428. Ellenborough, one 20s. in the pound, is not sufficient C. J. 1808. to revive a debt. Lynbuy v. Weightman, 5 Esp. 198. Ellenborough, C. J.

1805.

And see Bailey v. Dillon, 2 Burr. 756; Berford v. Saunders, 2 H. Bla. 116; Alsop v. Brown, Dougl. 182. (191.)

197. An admission of the debt is not sufficient. Fleming v. Hayne, 1 Stark. 370. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816.

198. Although accompanied with an unaccepted offer to pay by instalments. Ibid.

I. CERTIFICATE.

I. (a) To what demands a bar.

I. (b) How pleaded.

203. A bankrupt cannot give his certificate in evidence under the general issue. Gowland v. Warren, 1 Camp. 363. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

And see Stedman v. Martinnant, 12 East, 664; Joseph v. Orme, 2 N. R. 180.

I. (c) How avoided.

204. Where a defendant sets up a certificate, and the plaintiff contends that the bankruptcy relied on is a second bankruptcy, under which the defendant 199. School-money, payable half has not paid 15s. in the pound, the yearly, is not a debt until the expiration plaintiff must prove a certificate obof the half year; and if the parent be-tained. But the production of the procome bankrupt before the quarter day, ceedings under the former commission,

wherein the surrender and last exami-1 214. And it lies upon the plaintiff to nation are stated, is sufficient evidence shew, that an act of bankruptcy was of such former commision. Gregory v. committed before the date of the bill. Merton, 3 Esp. 195. Kenyon, C. J. Ibid.

1800.

N. The time of the acceptance, and S. P. Haviland v. Cook, 5 T. R. 655. not the date of the bill, appears to be 205. The certificate must be produced; material.

unless it be in the hands of the opposite 215. But such antecedent act of party, in which case, after notice, secon-bankruptcy is sufficiently shewn by prodary evidence may be given. Graham v.ducing the proceedings under the comGrill, 4 Campb. 282. Ellenborough, mission, which state, that an act of C. J. 1815. bankruptcy was committed before the date of the bill. Ibid.

206. Where there has been no notice to produce the certificate, the affidavit of conformity is insufficient. Ibid.

And see ante H. (d). 195.

216. If a commission issue against a

And see Norton v. Shakespeare, 15 person by the name of A., who is known East, 619; Slaughter v. Cheyne, 1 M. only by the name of B., a certificate and S. 182, as to effect of previous com-granted to A. is a good bar to an action position with creditors. against B., provided it be proved that 207. A replication to a general plea of he was once called A., and that he was bankruptcy, stating the special matter, is bad on special demurrer. Wilson v. Kemp, 3 Campb. 499 n. 2 M. and S. 549. Ante, H. (d) 191.

208. To prove that defendant has been before discharged, it is sufficient, after notice to produce the former certificate, that the solicitor under the commission states that he was employed by defendant to obtain the certificate, and that, from the entries in his books, he has no doubt it was allowed. Henry v. Leigh, 3 Campb. 499. Ellenborough, C. J. 1813.

209. But semble, that the book kept by the secretary of bankrupts cannot be received as secondary evidence. Ibid.

210. Losses by gaming may be given in evidence under the general plea of bankruptcy. Hughes v. Morley, Holt, 520. Bayley, J. Lancaster Ass. 1817.

211. The plaintiff must elect whether he will give evidence of one loss of 51. or of several losses, amounting altogether to 1001. Ibid.

And the court of K. B. confirmed the ruling upon this point. Ibid.

212. It lies on the defendant to prove, that he has paid 15s. in the pound, under the second commission. Gregory v. Merton, ubi supra.

213. Where a bankrupt acceptor pleads his certificate, he is primâ facie discharged, if it appear that the commission was sued out after the day on which the bill bore date, though before it became due. Pearson v. Fletcher, 5 Esp. 90. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803.

the person against whom, under that name of A., the commission issued. Stevens v. Elizée, 3 Campb. 256. Ellenborough, C. J. 1812.

of any document. Ganer v. Lady Lanes- which is merely a ratification of a preborough, Peake, 18. Kenyon, C. J.vious contract in writing; and that the 1790. original contract must be produced. Horn v. Noel, 1 Campb. 61. Ellenborough, C. J. 1807.

2. Or it may be shewn, that the husband de facto was previously married to another woman. Ibid.

3. But an acknowledgment of a marriage, unsupported by proof of an actual marriage, or cohabitation, was not held sufficient. Anne Wilson v. Mitchell, 3 Campb. 393. Ellenborough, C. J. 1813.

12. In an action for crim. con., where the plaintiff was married at the chapel in the tower, he must prove that banns were usually published there before the marriage act. Taunton v. Wyborn, 2 Campb. 297. Ellenborough, C. J. 1809. Acc. Rex v. Northfield, Dougl. 659. 13. But it will be prima facie suffi

4. If the substance of the marriage act be complied with, the marriage is valid. The form is merely directory.cient to produce an old register of marStanden v. Standen and others, Peake, 32, Kenyon, C. J. 1791.

And see Nicholson v. Squire, 16 Ves. 259.

riages, solemnized in the chapel before the act, and a register of the publication of banns since that period, corroborated by evidence of the frequent publication of banns, and solemnization of marriages there of late years. Ibid.

14. Proof that a foreigner was received at the court of her own sovereign,

5. Semble, that the Fleet books are in no case evidence of marriage. Doe d. Orrel v. Madox, 1 Esp. 197. Kenyon, C. J. Maidstone, 1794. 6. But in all civil cases (personal ac-as the wife of a person of the same nations,) except the action of crim. con., tion, that she generally was regarded as general reputation is sufficient evidence his wife in that country, and that the of marriage. Leader v. Barry, 1 Esp. parties cohabited some time in England, 353. Kenyon, C. J. 1795. is, in a civil proceeding, presumptive evidence of coverture. Kay v. Duchesse de Pienne, 3 Campb. 123. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

Acc. Morris v. Miller, 1 W. Bla. 632. S. C. 4 Burr. 2057. Sed vide Dickenson et ux. v. Davis, 1 Stra. 480. And see 2 Roll. Ab. 551, 1. 5; May 15. Coverture may be given in eviv. May, Bull. N. P. 112; Hervey v. dence under non est factum. Lambert Hervey, 2 W. Bla. 877; 1 Wentw. Plead. v. Atkins, 2 Campb. 272. Ellenborough, 42. 2 Saund. 44. c. n. ; Bro. Abr. Trial, | C. J. 1809. 16.

Qu. As to proceedings in dower, or where a party makes title under a marriage settlement?

7. Or the declarations of the parties. Read v. Passer, Peake, 231, and 1 Esp. 213. Kenyon, C. J. 1794.

8. And reputation and declarations as to a marriage celebrated in the Fleet, previously to the marriage act are evidence. Ibid.

9. The registration of a marriage is not essential to its validity. Ibid. And see Birt v. Barlow, Dougl. 162, 170.

10. An examined copy of the register of a marriage in the Swedish ambassador's chapel at Paris, is not evidence. Leader v. Barry, ubi supra.

11. Semble, that a Jewish marriage is not sufficiently proved in a civil action, by witnesses present at the ceremony which takes place in the synagogue, and

A. (b) Promise of marriage.

16. Brutal or violent conduct, or threats of ill usage, afford a legal excuse for breaking off an engagement. Leeds v. Cooke et ux. 4 Esp. 256. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803.

17. So dishonesty and perjury. Baddeley v. Mortlock and Wife, Holt, 151. Gibbs, C. J. 1816.

18. But mere reports and suspicions are not sufficient. Ibid.

19. But an omission on the part of the plaintiff to clear his character, affects the damages. Ibid.

And see Holcroft v. Dickenson, Carter, 233, 5; Harrison v. Cage, 1 Lord Raym. 386, 7; Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Mariage, part 2, chap. 1, art. 7, where the different circumstances which will, and which will not justify a renun

tiation of the contract, are fully dis-rine, 1 Salk. 116; S. C. 2 Salk. 646; cussed. S. C. 1 Lord Raym. 147; Boggett v. Frier, 11 East, 301; Burfield v. Duchesse de Pienne, 2 N. R. 380; Compton v. Collinson, 1 H. Bla. 348, 9.

See also post, EVIDENCE, G. (c); 4 Bac. Abr. Marriage and Divorce, B. And, as to disparagement, see Co. Litt. 80. a. b.

20. From a statement to the father, by the defendant, that he has pledged himself to marry the plaintiff within six months, the jury may infer a promise to marry generally, i. e. within a reasonable time. Potter v. Deboos, 1 Stark. 82. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815.

27. Husband residing in the West Indies, allows the wife a weekly sum for her subsistence. She cannot be sued alone. Wm. M'Namara and Margaret, his wife, v. Fisher (in error,) 3 Esp. 18. Kenyon, C. J. 1799.

S. C. not S. P. 8 T. R. 302.

Acc. Farrer v. Granard, 1 New Rep. 80; Boggett v. Frier, 11 East, 301.

Sed vide Eliz. Wilmot's case, Moore,

B. Act of wifE, WHOM IT AFFECTS. 851; Castleton v. Fitzwilliams, Cary's

B. (a) Herself.

Rep. 143, 4; Dubois v. Hole, 2 Vern. 613; Anon. 1 Bulstr. 140.

28. A woman whose husband has been 21. A separate maintenance, not se-transported may, after the expiration of cured by deed, will not make a wife the term of transportation, sue upon a liable upon her own contracts. Sted-cause of action which accrued during man v. Gooch, 1 Esp. 4, 7. Kenyon, that period, unless it can be shewn that C. J. 1793. the husband has returned. Carroll v. Blencow, 4 Esp. 27. Alvanley, C. J. 1801.

And see Boggett v. Frier, 11 East, 303. Co. Litt. 132. b. Jewson v. Read, Lofft. 142.

Acc. Ellah v. Leigh, 5 T. R. 679. N. In Marshall v. Rutton, 8 T. R. 545, it was settled, that no separate maintenance will make the wife personally liable. It may, however, discharge the husband; post. B. (b) 3, 9. 22. Where a woman is let in to plead under terms of not availing herself of her coverture, she is precluded from shewing, that the goods were delivered S. P. arg. Mitchinson v. Hewson, 7 on her husband's credit. Snell v. Rice, T. R. 350; 1 Roll. Abr. 351, (G.) pl. 2. Peake, 235, and 1 Esp. 221. Kenyon,

C. J. 1792.

29. A widow is liable for debts contracted by her before coverture. Woodman v. Chapman, widow, 1 Campb. 189. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

B. (b) Husband.

24. Held, that where a husband, a foreigner, leaves the kingdom and is And see ante, ACTION, A. 22,3; 2 absent some years, the wife is chargeable Saund. 47. h, i; F. N. B. 177 H. ncte (e). for goods furnished since his departure. Walford v. Duchesse de Pienne, 2 Esp. 554. Kenyon, C. J. 1797.

25. And that although the credit commenced during the husband's residence in England, the creditor may recover for such part of the account as accrued after his departure. Franks v. Duchesse de Pienne, 2 Esp. 587. Kenyon, C. J. 1797.

26. But it seems to be now settled, that the wife cannot be sued where the husband has at any period lived with her within the realm. Kay v. Duchesse de Pienne, 3 Camp. 123. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811, and K. B. H. 1812.

30. A debt due from the wife dum sola, cannot be set off in an action brought by the husband alone. Wood v. Akers, 2 Esp. 594. Eyre, C. J. 1797. S. P. e converso, Bull, N. P. 179. And see Robarts v. Mason, 1 Taunt. 254; F. N. B. 121 C. 120 F.

31. Secus, where the husband has expressly ordered the debt to be paid. Ibid. And see AGREEMENT, A. (b) 22.

32. Where, in an action against husband, the former gives an undertaking to appear for himself only, and appears accordingly, and an appearance is entered for the wife, sec. stat. on an affidaAnd see Deerly v. Duchess of Maza-vit of service, the husband must plead

for both.

Russell v. Buchanan, Exch. ticles of the peace, which it is necessary,
Manning's, Exch. Pra. for her safety, to exhibit against him.
Shepherd, one, &c. v. Mackoul, 3 Campb.

M. T. 1818.

625, 6, 7, 8.

33. A man who marries a widow and 326. Ellenborough, C. J. 1813. receives her children into his family, is liable for contracts made by the wife in his absence, for the education of such children. Stone v. Carr, 3 Esp. 1. Kenyon, C. J. 1799.

And see 20 H. 7. 2 b. per Fineux ad finem.

And see Cooper v. Martin, 4 East, 76, 82.

43. A husband is liable for the expences of a defence upon an indictment against the wife for keeping a bawdy house, where it appears that he was privy to her doing so, and that he knew she was defended by the plaintiff. Ibid.

34. Where a deed of separation is executed by the husband and wife, but 44. A husband cannot be sued for the not by the trustee appointed on behalf of amount of goods furnished to his wife by the latter, it is void, and cannot be set a tradesman, who has notice of a seup as a defence to an action against the parate maintenance. Rawlins v. Vanhusband for necessaries furnished to the dyke, ubi supra. wife after he has refused to receive her into his house. Ewers v. Hutton, 3 Esp. 255. Kenyon, C. J. 1801.

And see Morton v. Withens, Skinn. 348; Nurse v. Craig, 2 N. R. 148; Ozard v. Darnford, Selw. 261. 4 Burr.

35. But where husband and wife live 2177. apart, and he pays her an adequate al-45. If, on a separation, the wife is lowance, he is not liable for her debts, adequately provided for, though from although there be no written agreement funds of her own, the husband is not with respect to the allowance. Hodg-hable for her debts. Liddlow v. Wilmot, kinson and another v. Fletcher, 4 Campb. 2 Stark. 86. Ellenborough, C. J. 70. Ellenborough, C. J. 1814.

1817.

J. 1817.

36. The adequacy of the allowance is 46. But he may be sued on a promise, a question of fact for the jury. Ibid. even though made under a mistake, as to 37. The wife's receipts are not ad- his legal liability. Hornbuckle v. Hornmissible to prove that a separate main-bury, 2 Stark. 177. Ellenborough, C. tenance has been paid. Ibid. 38. A man who permits his children 47. A husband not living with his to live with his wife, gives her an im- wife, is liable for unnecessary articles of plied authority to purchase necessaries dress ordered by her, if he, being prefor them. Rawlins v. Vandyke, 3 Esp. sent when they are sent home, do not 250, 2. Eldon, C. J. 1800. enforce a demand made by the tradesman to have them returned. Waithman and another v. Wakefield, esq. 1 Campb. 120. Ellenborough, C. J. 1807.

39. A man who turns his wife out of doors, is liable for necessaries furnished to her, though he caution the public, and even the plaintiff individually, not to give her credit. Harris v. Morris, 4 Esp. 41. Kenyon, C. J. 1801.

S. P. Bolton v. Prentice, 2 Stra. 1214, better reported in Selw. 249.

And see Thompson v. Hervey, 4 Burr. 2177.

48. A husband living apart from his wife, is liable for expenses suitable to the appearance which he allows her to assume, however disproportionate to his real circumstances. Ibid.

49. But where a tradesman neglects the means of ascertaining the true situa40. So where the husband will not tion of the husband, the latter is liable receive his wife into his house. Raw-only for necessaries suitable to his cirlins v. Vandyke, ubi supra. cumstances. Ibid.

41. Or the wife is soill-treated by her 50. Where a woman residing with husband, as to render it unsafe for her her husband, without his privity, orders to live with him. Hodges v. Hodges, 1 excessive quantities of apparel, which Esp. 441. Kenyon, C. J. 1796.

And see Aldis v. Chapman, Selw. 263; Horwood v. Heffer, 3 Taunt. 421.

42. A husband who turns his wife out of doors is liable for the costs of ar

are supplied on her personal credit, and are attempted to be secured by a promissory note given in her own name, the husband is not liable for any part of the goods, though it do not appear