This is аn action at common law, brought by a town, which has been obliged to pay for aid furnished to a woman as a pauper, against her husband, to recover from him the amount so paid.
The liability of a husband under such circumstances depends upon the same facts as his liability for necessaries furnished by an individual for the support of his wife while she is living apart from him. If she is living away frоm him with his consent, or for a justifiable cause, he is chargeable with her support, whether necessaries are furnished her by an individual on her application, or by a city or town under the laws for relief of paupers. New Bedford v. Chace,
The plaintiff town contends, in support of its second request for a ruling, that it is enough if upon the whole case the person
The other ruling in regard to the disposition of the case upon thе evidence was, “that the commencement of divorce proceedings by the defendant under the circumstancеs was not such conduct as justified the wife in leaving.” This ruling is made to depend on the facts of the case. There had been аltercations and quarrels between the parties, in regard to which the evidence was conflicting. There was evidence of a cruel and unjustifiable assault made by the wife upon the husband eight days before the libel for divorce was filed. This evidence was contradicted. There was evidence that the husband furnished provisions for her in his own house, and informed her that.shе could get others at a store where he had credit. There was a dispute at the trial as to the extent and adequacy of the provision so made for supplying her wants. In regard to all these matters the judge found, at least negatively, in favоr of the husband. He found that there was no such cruelty or abuse by the husband, and no such neglect or failure to provide for hеr support, as would justify her in leaving his house. These are findings on matters of
The evidence of the judgment in the divorce suit was rightly excluded. In the first place, the litigation was not between the same parties, nor was there any рrivity between the wife defending a suit for a divorce and the town suing for support furnished while she was living apart from her husband. In both cаses some of the same facts were involved, but it creates no privity between two parties that, as litigants in two different suits, thеy happen to be interested in proving or disproving the same facts. The judgment was not competent as establishing a stаtus on which the rights of either of the parties depend. The questions arising on this exception are discussed and decided in Burlen v. Shannon,
Thе only remaining exception is to the admission of evidence in regard to the relations between the husband and wife shortly bеfore their marriage, and to the wife’s conduct and conversations in reference to the proposed marriage. We cannot say, as matter of law, that these were too remote in point of time. The marriage occurrеd a little more than a year before the separation, and there was evidence of a lack of harmony between them almost from the time of the marriage. It is obvious that Mrs. Franklin’s declarations could not be introduced to show the truth оf what she said, and we do not suppose the testimony was received for that purpose; but the plaintiff’s contention is, in effect, that nothing which she said or did could be competent, as
Exceptions overruled.
Notes
The second and third requests for rulings were as follows :
“ 2. In this ease, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he was relieved from the obligation to support his wife through her misconduct.
“ 3. Inasmuch аs it appears by the pleadings and evidence that at the time the aid was furnished the defendant was neither providing for his wifе nor offering to do so, but was prosecuting a libel for the dissolution of marriage, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the еxpenses incurred for her relief as a pauper, unless the defendant shall prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in his position towards her by her misconduct.”