1 Shipton, Inhabitants of, Rex v. Robert, Rex v. Sidford, Wiltshire v. Sigourney v. Lloyd and Others Soper, Henly v. Stead and Another, Gibbs and Another v. 528 Wilts, Justices of, Rex v. Stourbridge, Inhabitants of, Rex v, 36 Wiltshire v, Sidford 96 Winter, Rex v. 88 Wells v. Gurney 769 772 Whieldon, Keats v. 7. 259 Whistler, Clerk, Bryan v. 288 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IN EASTER TERM,. In the Ninth Year of the Reign of GEORGE IV. 1828. - Galluspie SPARKES and Others v. BELL and Wife. - p. A married woman, taken in execution together with her husband for a debt due from her before marriage, is not entitled to be discharged, unless it appears that she has no separate property, even although the husband has been discharged under the insolvent act. A RULE nisi had been obtained to discharge an order made by Bayley, J., for discharging Sarah Bell out of custody, she having been taken in execution, together with her husband, on a ca..sa. issued against them, and for issuing a new writ of ca. sa. against her. By the affidavits it appeared that Sarah Bell, before her intermarriage with the other defendant, carried on the business of a baker at Exeter, and became indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 100l. and upwards. In February, 1827, she married the other defendant, having previously conveyed a house and other premises, in which she had an estate for her own life, her furniture and stock in trade, to a trustee for her separate use. Soon after the marriage the plaintiffs commenced an action against the two defendants for the recovery of the 1007. due, and arrested them both, whereupon they gave bail. The husband was soon afterwards arrested for another debt, and committed to prison, and he and his wife suffered judgment by default in the action brought by the plaintiffs, and afterwards a ca. sa. was issued, upon which the husband, then in custody, was charged in execution, and Sarah Bell was committed to the same prison. An order for her discharge was made by Bayley, J., and the husband afterwards obtained his discharge as an insolvent debtor. The affidavits in answer did not deny the allegations made by the plaintiffs, but showed that the house was mortgaged, not, however, to the full value. Archbold showed cause, and contended that the application to discharge the order was too late, the husband having in the mean time obtained his discharge as an insolvent debtor. In the case of Miles v. Williams et Ux., 1 P. Wms. 249, it was held that a debt contracted by the wife dum sola was discharged by the bankruptcy of the husband : this case is precisely analogous; the debt was discharged by the provisions |