SEPAREE

ni 1872.

| réclamant.

ge soit enrer,à part, des

n property biens by à n was con-

tested and, among other things, it was contendel that the marriage contract not being registered was null as regards the creditors of the insolvent. The Court holds that the petitioner's marringe contract did not require registration to enable her to keep her property apart from her husband. The furniture and goods claimed have been the wife’s for many years, Judgment granting petition and ordering delivery of property to petitioner, (4 R. L,, 284).

FEMME MARIEE.—RESFONSABILITE.

COUR SUPÉRIEURE, MOYTRÉAL, 17 mai 1872.

Présent : MACKAY, J.

COURCELLES vs DUBois et al.

Jugé: Qu'un marchand épicier, qui a vendu des effets d'épiceries à un mari insolvable, pour l'usage de sa famille, peut en poursuivre le recouvrement contre l4 femme s‘parée de biens.

PER CuRIAM : This was an action for groccries supplied to a wWonun who was in very good cireumstances, but her husband was addicted to waste and drink. ‘The account had been running some time, and plaintif had originally charged the goods against the husband. The goods furnished included a great deal of liquor vendue par assiette, but when plaintif saw that he could not recover from the husband, he struck the liquor items out of the pass books and made a demand against the wife for the account reduced. The articles sued for where all bon« fide groceries for the wife and family : part of the account was admitted by female defendant, other part of it had been proved by plaintiff. Judgment for 875.10. (4 R. L., 284; 15 R. L,, 56).