LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI.
(D'après Keats.)
Montague v. Benedict, 3 B. & C, 631.
BY CHARLES MORSE,
Associate Editor of the Canada Law Journal.
[NOTE.—It is a ' vulgar error,' traceable apparently to this case, that " jewels are not necessaries;" yet the
case only decides that in view of the defendant's social and financial circumstances, and his wife's fortune, the
trinkets supplied to the latter by the plaintiff could not be considered part of her necessary apparel. Where hus
band and wife are living together, the term 'necessaries ' is defined by Willes, J., in Phillipson v. Hayter (L. R. 6
C. P. 38) as articles " really necessary and suitable to the style in which the husband chooses to live, in so far as
they fall fairly within the domestic department which is ordinarily confided to the management of the wife.
When they are living apart, the presumption that the wife has her husband's authority to purchase ' necessaries '
does not always apply—but that, as Mr. Kipling says, is another story.]
0 what can ail thce, Montague. Alone and palely loitering? Tlic look is in thy hollow eye Ill-hap doth bring. 0 what can ail thec, man of pelf, So haggard and so woe-begone? For certes gold is to be had, And patrons to be 'done.' 1 see a paper in thy hand, A judgment dight with stamp and seal, ll holds thee with a mystic spell, Thy senses reel. A lady visited my shop, A feme covert—but not my wooing— Her eyes full bright, and purse full light. Were my undoing. "A golden dagger for her hair, And bracelets, too, and jewelled zone. I wrought for my fair customer— Their price I moan. • "Her promises lulled me asleep, Her lord would pay—ah, woe betide! She looked at me as she spoke true The while she lied.
