1826. BARNES V. WINKLER. the book kept at that Court, in which he made minutes of the cases as they were disposed of: he stated, that this case was dismissed on merits; and that although that Court could only take cognizance of debts under 40s., the case would not be dismissed, because the debt appeared to be greater in amount than 40s., provided that the plaintiff consented to waive enough of his debt to bring it under 40s. ABBOTT, C. J. (in summing up.)—If a man dismiss his wife without reason, and any one supply her with necessaries, the husband must pay for them; and so he must if they are supplied by his consent; but if the wife goes away of her own accord, the husband is not liable. The plaintiff here relies on the husband's consent. Now the defence in this case is, that the plaintiff sued on his claim for this very board and lodging, which is the subject of the present action, in the County Court, and that his complaint was dismissed. We have been told, that if the debt be of a greater amount than that Court can take cognizance of, the plaintiff has judgment in his favour, if he waives enough to bring it under 27.; and in point of law, if a debt of 21. and more is due, and the plaintiff consents to waive it, and to claim only 17. 19s. 6d., and wishes to resort to a cheap tribunal for the recovery of it, I see no reason why he may not do so, provided there be nothing in the Act of Parliament constituting that Court which prevents him. The judgment of the County Court is in this case not conclusive; but it is fit matter for consideration in estimating whether the wife of the defendant was at the house of the plaintiff by the assent of her husband, because, something might have occurred at the County Court, to shew that the plaintiff took her on his own responsibility. Verdict for the plaintiff.-Damages, 2. 12s. Andrews, for the plaintiff. Gurney, for the defendant. [Attornics-Platts, and Harmer.] Courts of Requests are established by different acts of Parliament in various parts of the kingdom. And if, in a case within their juris diction, a plaintiff sues in the superior Courts, he is put under great disadvantages, such as paying double costs, &c. These Courts have jurisdiction in a great many large towns, and also in many cases over hundreds, wapentakes, parishes, &c. They are much too numerous to be enumerated in this note; but the places in which they have jurisdiction, and the extent of the powers of each, with all other necessary information, will be found in Mr. Pratt's work on Courts of Requests; some of them have only jurisdiction to the amount of 40s., many more extend to 5l.; among which are those of London and APPLETON v. CAMPBELL. ASSUMPSIT for board and lodging. The defence was, that the defendant was an immodest woman, and used the lodgings for the purposes of prostitution, to the knowledge of the plaintiff. of To substantiate this, another female, who lodged in the house, and who was called for the plaintiff, proved, on her cross-examination, that the defendant was in the habit receiving male visitors, and that the plaintiff used some times to open the door for them; and that the plaintiff told her, that the defendant was an immodest woman. ABBOTT, C. J.-If a person lets a lodging to a woman, to enable her to consort with the other sex, and for the purposes of prostitution, he cannot recover for the lodging so supplied. But if the defendant had her lodgings there, 1826. APPLETON v. CAMPBELL. and received her visitors elsewhere, the plaintiff may recover, although she be a woman of the town, because persons of that description must have a place to lay their heads; but if this place was used for immoral purposes, the plaintiff cannot recover. Verdict for the defendant. Gurney and Abraham, for the plaintiff. Scarlett, for the defendant. [Attornies-G. Williams, and Carlon & H.] See the case of Born v. Bennett, 1 Camp. 246, and the cases there cited. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Sittings at Westminster, in Trinity Term, 1826. BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BEST. May 27th. In an action of ejectment, months was giv en by the lessor of the plaintiff to the occupier of the premises a DOE, on the demise of SCOTT, v. Miller. EJECTMENT to recover possession of certain premises at Westminster, for the breach of the covenants to pay rent and repair. On the part of the defendant, it was proved, that a short time before the action was brought, a notice, dated the 21st of December, 1825, was given by the lessor of the plaintiff' to the defendant, requiring her to quit and deliver up the short time before premises on or before Midsummer-day, 1826, describing them in these terms, "which you now hold of me as tenant from year to year." the action, Vaughan, Serjt. submitted, that this notice could have no operation to defeat the action, as the party might not, at the time when it was given, have discovered the state of the premises. Adams, Serjt., contended, that, pending the notice, the action was not maintainable, inasmuch as it was a waiver of the forfeiture, and a continuation of the tenancy. He cited Doe v. Allan (a), where it is said, that the receipt of rent is such an affirmation of a tenancy, as to prevent the bringing ejectment for a precedent forfeiture. BEST, C. J.-The giving a notice to quit is similar to the receipt of rent. Otherwise, a man might be at liberty to say to his tenant, "you may stay in for six months," and then immediately after bring an ejectment against him. This is my opinion, in the absence of any authority which decides the point. I think the plaintiff, under the circumstances, must be called. Nonsuit, with leave to move (b). Vaughan, Serjt., and Steer, for the plaintiff. Adams, Serjt., for the defendant. [Attornies-Young, S. & E., and Brill.] 1826. DOE บ. MILLER. 1826. Second Sittings at Guildhall in Trinity Term, 1826. June 1st. PRATT v. WILLEY. If an agent em- ASSUMPSIT for goods sold. ployed to sell coals, make a bargain in his own name with a tradesman to furnish him with coals on credit, for which, in re turn, he is to receive goods on credit, and the coals and the goods be both delivered, the real seller of the coals may recover the price of the tradesman, if his name be in the ticket sent with the coals as the seller, be cause the trades. A man named Surtees, being authorised to sell coals as the agent of the plaintiff, went to the defendant, who was a tailor, and in his own name made a bargain to furnish the defendant with coals on credit, for which the defendant was to furnish him with clothes also on credit. At one time, when he called, he gave to the defendant's wife a card, on which was written "Surtees, Coal-merchant," &c. When the coals were delivered, there was in the tickets sent with them the name of Pratt, as the seller. The defendant had delivered clothes to Surtees in performance of his part of the bargain. For the defendant, it was contended, that the plaintiff man after that is had no right to sue him for the coals, as the bargain bound to inquire had been made with Surtees as a principal, without any into the nature tuation, and should not con of the agent's si- knowledge of his being the plaintiff's agent, and therefore that the price of the clothes might be set off against that of the coals. The case of George v. Clagett, was cited (u). tinue to treat bim as a princi pal. BEST, C. J., was of opinion, that, as the name of the plaintiff was in the tickets as the seller of the coals, the defendant ought to have made inquiry into the nature of the situation of Surtees, and should not, after that, have (a) 7 T. R. 359. The point decided in that case was, that "If a factor, who sells under a del credere commission, sells goods as his own, and the buyer knows no thing of any principal, the buyer may set off any demand he may have on the factor against the demand for the goods made by the principal." |
