the bankrupt a witness to prove his own act of bankruptcy (n) (29). No question can be asked from the bankrupt, the object of which is to support his own bankruptcy; and it is immaterial whether such question be asked upon an examination in chief, or upon a cross-examination (o). It is equally improper in both cases. Nor can a bankrupt (30) be asked questions, the effect and tendency of which is to establish an antecedent act of bankruptcy (p). Nor, to explain an equivocal act of bankruptcy (q); nor to explain an act, which may defeat (r) his commission. Nor, if a joint commission issues against two, can one, having obtained his certificate, be called to prove an act of bankruptcy committed by the other (s). But although the bankrupt cannot be a witness to prove his own. act of bankruptcy, yet what was said by him in explanation of his own act, may be received in evidence (t). Hence, if he has been absent from home, a declaration by him on his return home, that he had been abroad in order to avoid creditors, is good evidence. (n) Field v. Curtis, Str. 829. (0) Elsom v. Brailey, C. B., London Sittings after M. T. 50 Geo. III., Lawrence, J. (p) Wyat v. Wilkinson, C. B., London Sittings, Chambre, J., 5 Esp. N. P. C. 187. (g) Hoffman v. Pitt, 5 Esp. N. P. C. 22, Ellenborough, C. J.; but see John- (r) Sayer v. Garnett, 7 Bingh. 103. 279. (t) Bateman v. Bailey, 5 T. R. 512; Ewens v. Gold, per Hardwicke, C. J., Bull. N. P. 40, S. P. (29) "For although the bankrupt has obtained a certificate, yet if he be not a bankrupt, (as he cannot be if he has not committed an act of bankruptcy, which is the question,) his certificate and the proceedings under the commission are void." (30) In an action by the assignees of a bankrupt for money had and received, in order to establish the act of bankruptcy, the plaintiffs proved that the trader had absconded for fear of being arrested. The defendant, in order to substantiate his defence in proof, called the bankrupt. The plaintiffs offered to cross-examine him, as to the time of his first secreting himself for fear of being arrested. Norton and Ford for defendant objected, that he could not be examined to that fact; for he was not a competent witness, being interested to establish his bankruptcy; and it was settled that the plaintiffs could not produce him to prove an act of bankruptcy, though he might be examined as to collateral matter. On the part of the plaintiffs it was admitted, that he could not be produced by the plaintiff as a witness in chief to that fact, but when the defendant called him, and made him a competent witness in the cause, he submitted to his being examined, and could not prevent any question being asked his own witness. Lee, C. J., "I think the defendant, by calling the witness, has waived all objections to his competency; and therefore he may be examined as to the time of the bankruptcy." Fletcher and Bolton, Assignees of Gill, Bankrupt, v. Woodmas, B. R. London Sittings, M. 25 Geo. II. MS. "The rule is not confined to the precise time of the act in question; for, in the foregoing case, the declaration was made the day after. The court must, in each case, consider (u), whether the declaration proposed to be received does or does not come within a reasonable time of the disputed act." Hence, where a trader, in embarrassed circumstances, absented himself from his house, from the 16th of February until the 9th of March: upon an issue, whether he had committed an act of bankruptcy on or before the 5th of March, two letters, written by him on the 16th of January preceding, asking for time on two bills of exchange, payable by him in February, were received in evidence, to show the motive of his absence (x). A certificated bankrupt cannot be a witness to prove any of the facts necessary to support the commission, as the petitioning creditor's debt (y), &c., because he is interested in upholding the commission, on the validity of which his certificate and discharge from his former debts depend (31). But to prove other matters he may (2), that is, when he has executed a release to his assignees of his share in the surplus and dividends. See ante, p. 266. A certificated bankrupt, under a second commission of bankruptcy, cannot be a witness for the assignees under that commission (a), if he has not paid 15s. in the pound under it. An uncertificated bankrupt may be a witness against himself, but not for himself, that is, he may be a witness to decrease the fund, but not to increase it (b). A general release by a creditor to an uncertificated bankrupt, is not sufficient to render the bankrupt a competent witness for the creditor, where the result of his testimony would give the creditor a right to prove under the commission (c). The creditor ought also to give a release to the assignee of all claim on the bankrupt's estate, and the bankrupt ought to release his claim to a surplus (d). In an action brought by the assignees of a bankrupt for money had and received to their use, the wife of the bankrupt, who had not obtained his certificate, (but had released his assignees,) was (u) Per Tindal, C. J., Ridley v. Gyde, 9 Bingh. 352. See Roach v. Great Western Railway Co., Q. B. H. T. 1841; X. Law Journal, N. S. 89. (x) Smith v. Cramer, 1 Bingh. N. C. 585. (y) Per Cur. in Chapman v. Gardner, 2 H. Bl. 279. (z) Per Ryder, C. J., in Flower v. Her bert, London Sittings, Dec. 17, 1754; 2 H. Bl. 279, n. (a). (a) Kennet v. Greenwollers, Peake's N. P. C. 3, per Kenyon, C. J. (b) Butler v. Cooke, Cowp. 70, and Walker v. Walker, there cited. (c) Perryman v. Steggall and another, 8 Bingh. 369. (d) Ib. (31) The certificate may be considered also as a release, which the releasee can never be allowed as a witness to affirm. Per Ryder, C. J., Flower v. Herbert, N. P. 2 H. Bl. 279, n. (a). holden (e), not to be a competent witness to prove the payment of a sum of money to the defendant by the bankrupt after his bankruptcy. An assignee (f) of a bankrupt who has released his individual claims on the bankrupt's estate, is an admissible witness to prove the petitioning creditor's debt, for he stands in the situation of a mere trustee, whose trust is coupled with no personal interest. Upon an issue out of chancery, to try whether the bankrupt had, within one year before his bankruptcy, lost five pounds in one day at gaming, a creditor of the bankrupt was called to prove the gaming; but the C. J. would not allow him to be a witness; because he would be entitled to a share out of the bankrupt's allowance forfeited by the gaming (g). Upon an issue to try the validity of a commission of bankrupt, a creditor is not a competent witness to support the commission, although he does not appear to have proved under it (h); but he is a competent witness (i) to prove that the commission is not sustainable. A creditor who has released his debt to the assignees may be called to prove the act of bankruptcy, although the bankrupt is plaintiff in the action in which the commission is disputed (k). A release to the assignees only is sufficient without giving one to the bankrupt (1). A creditor who has sold his debt is a good witness to support the commission, by proving the petitioning creditor's debt; because his interest is gone (m); but the petitioning creditor is not a competent witness to show that the commission was regularly sued out; for he enters into a bond to the chancellor, conditioned to establish the several facts upon which the validity of the commission depends, and to cause it to be effectually executed. He has, therefore, a direct interest in the question at issue (n). But he is competent to prove the commission invalid (o); and even to cut down his own debt (p). CHAPTER VIII. BARON AND FEME. I. Of the Liability of the Husband, 1. In respect of Contracts made by the Wife before Coverture, p. 270. 2. In respect of Contracts made by the Wife during Co verture, p. 271. 3. In respect of the Children of the Wife by a former Husband, p. 282. II. In what Cases a Feme Covert may be considered as a Feme Sole, p. 283. III.Of Actions by Husband and Wife, p. 288. 1. Where the Husband and Wife must join, p. 288. 2. Where the Husband must sue alone, p. 290. 3. Where the Husband and Wife may join, or the Husband may sue alone, at his Election, p. 292. IV. Of Actions against Husband and Wife, p. 296. I. Of the Liability of the Husband, 1. In respect of Contracts made by the Wife before Coverture, p. 270. 2. In respect of Contracts made by the Wife during Co verture, p. 271. 3. In respect of the Children of the Wife by a former Husband, p. 282. 1. IN respect of Contracts made by the Wife before Coverture.The husband is liable to the debts of his wife, contracted by her before the coverture, and the husband and wife may be sued for such debts during the coverture (a); and in actions for the recovery of such debts, husband and wife must be joined. 7 T. R. 348. (a) F. N. B. 120, F. But if these debts are not recovered against the husband and wife, in the life-time of the wife, the husband cannot be charged for them either at law (b) or in equity after the death of the wife. But if the wife survive the husband, an action may be maintained against her for the recovery of these debts (c); unless during the coverture the husband has been discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, in which case the wife is discharged for ever (d). band is liable for necessaries provided for his wife pending a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court and before alimony decreed, although a decree afterwards made direct the alimony to be paid from a date before the time when the necessaries were provided for the wife. Keegan v. Smith, 5 B. & C. 375. The defendant's wife (e), before marriage, gave a promissory note for 50l. to the plaintiff, and afterwards married the defendant, who had with her personal estate to the amount of 7001., part whereof consisted of choses in action. The plaintiff did not during the coverture recover judgment upon the note against the husband and wife. The wife died about a year after the marriage. The defendant on her death took out letters of administration. Some of the choses in action had been received by the defendant as husband in the lifetime of the wife, the rest he took as her administrator. The plaintiff, finding that the choses in action were not sufficient to satisfy his demand, filed a bill against the defendant, praying that the defendant should be made liable to answer his the plaintiff's demand, for so much as he had received out of the clear personal estate of the wife upon his marriage: Lord Talbot, Ch., said, that as on the one hand the husband was by law liable, during the coverture, to all debts contracted by his wife, dum sola, whatever their amount might be (ƒ), although she did not bring him a portion of one shilling; so, on the other hand, it was certain, that if such debts were not recovered during the coverture, the husband, as such, was not chargeable, let the fortune he received with his wife be ever so great. He added, that the wife's choses in action were assets, and thereupon decreed an account of what the husband had received since his wife's death as her administrator, and that he should be liable for so much only; but as to any further demand against him, dismissed the bill. 2. In respect of Contracts made by the Wife during Coverture.All the personal estate of which the wife is possessed in her own right, is by the marriage vested absolutely in the husband (g) (1). (6) F. N. B. 121, C.; 1 Rol. Abr. 351, (G.) pl. 2. (c) Woodman v. Chapman, 1 Campb. 189, Lord Ellenborough, C. J. (d) Lockwood v. Salter, 5 B. & Ad. 303. (e) Heard v. Stamford, 3 P. Wms. 409; Ca. Temp. Talb. 173, S. C. (f) F. N. B. 120, F. (g) 1 Inst. 351, b., recognised in Checchi v. Powell, 6 B. & C. 253. (1) The wearing apparel of a married woman, bought by her out of |