Mason and Another, Administrators of Mary Wild, Deceased v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1865 |
| Date | 26 January 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 638
Exchequer Division
S. C. 34 L. J. Ex. 68; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 89; 13 W. R. 349, 11 L. T. 714.
63 8 MASON V. MITCHELL 3 IL & C. 528. [528] MASON AND ANOTHER, Administrators of Mary Wild, Deceased v MITCHELL. Jan. 2, 1865.An order, under the 20 & 21 Vict c. 85, s 21, protecting the earnings of a married woman deserted by her husband, is confined to money or property acquired by her lawful industry, and does not extend to property acquired by keeping a brothel. [S. C. 34 L. J. Ex. 68 11 Jur. (N. S.) 89 ; 13 W. R. 349 , 11 L. T. 714.] Counts in trespass, trover, and for money had and received. Pleas : not guilty ; a denial of the plaintiffs' property , and never indebted. At the trial, before Blackburn, J., at the last Liverpool Winter Assizes, it appeared that the action was brought by the plaintiffs, as administrators of Mary Wild, to recover from the defendant the value of certain furniture sold by him under the following circumstances --The deceased, Mary Wild, was the wife of one Anthony Wild, whom she married in the year 1847 In the year 1857, she voluntarily left her husband's house, and from that time until her death she kept a brothel, cohabiting with different men On the 9th of November, 1860, she applied to a magistrate for an order of protection under the 21st section of the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85,(a) alleging that on and since the 7th June, 1857, she [529] had been deserted by her husband without reasonable cause, and was maintaining herself by her own industry. The magistrate made an order in which those facts were recited, and the order was duly registered as required by the Act. The expenses of the order were defrayed by a man with whom she was then cohabiting. Upon her death in July, 1864, her husband went to the house in which she had lived, and took possession of the furniture mid effects there, and employed the defendant to sell them by auction The sale realized 521. Is. 2d , the balance of which, after deducting rent, taxes, and expenses of sale, was handed over by the defendant to the husband Two months afterwards, the plaintiffs, who were brothers of the deceased wife, obtained a grant of letters of administration limited to the effects of the deceased acquired after the alleged desertion, and brought this action. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that under these circumstances the action was not maintainable. The learned Judge was disposed to think that the order was [530] valid until discharged , and, in answer to questions left by his lordship to the jury, they found that the deceased wife had not been deserted by her husband ; (a) Sect 21. " A wife deserted by her husband may at any time after such desertion, if resident within the Metropolitan District, apply to a police magistrate, or if resident in the country to justices in Petty Sessions, or in either case to the Court, for an order to protect any money or property she may acquire by her own lawful industry, and property which she may become possessed of, after such...
To continue reading
Request your trial