Morris v. Mil the plaintiff and his wife being the perfons married is fufficient as if the hand-writing of the husband and wife to the register is proved; or bell-ringers came to the parties and faid they rung for the wedding, and were paid by them, or people dined at the wedding dinner; or other circumftances to afcertain the perfons. Where the plaintiff proved articles between himself and his ler, K. B. Eaft. wife, purporting to be made after the marriage, of the wife's 7 G. 3. eftate, and which were executed by the plaintiff and his wife, with the privity of her relations, and her uncle was the truftee in the fettlement; that the always went by the name of his wife, and was fo confidered by the relations on both fides; and likewife proved cohabitation, this was holden not to be fufficient. Ibid. Woolfton and Scott per Den pifon J. at Therford, 1753, where plaintiff was an anabaptift, and recovered 500 l. Baker and ball, 1739. So where the defendant was surprised at a lodging with the plaintiff's wife, and on being asked where major Morris's wife was, he answered "in the next room;" this was holden not to be fufficient, for it is only a confeffion of the reputation, and that she went by the name of the defendant's wife, and not a confeffion of the fact of the marriage. It has been doubted whether the ceremony muft not be performed according to the rites of the church; but as this is an action against a wrong-doer, and not a claim of right, it feems fufficient to prove the marriage according to any form of religion, as in the case of Anabaptists, Quakers or Jews. The confeffion of the wife will be no evidence against the Morley, Guild. defendant; but a difcourfe between her and the defendant may be proved. So letters written to her by the defendant may be read as evidence against him, but her letters to him will be no evidence for him. Cook and Sayer, Mich. 32 G. 2. 753 As the gift of the action is the criminal converfation, and not the affault, the proper plea under the ftatute of limitation is not guilty within fix years. BOOK. BOOK II. For what Injuries affecting a Man's perfonal Property, an Action may be brought. INTRODUCTION. AVING in the laft book taken notice of the feveral injuries affecting a man's person for which an action may be brought, I fhall now confider in what cafe an action will lie for injuries affecting his property; and they divide themselves into two forts: 1. Such as affect his perfonal property. 2. Such as affect his real property. The actions that may be brought for injuries affecting his personal property, are, Morris v. Mil 7 G. 3. the plaintiff and his wife being the perfons married is fufficient as if the hand-writing of the husband and wife to the register is proved; or bell-ringers came to the parties and faid they rung for the wedding, and were paid by them, or people dined at the wedding dinner; or other circumstances to ascertain the perfons. Where the plaintiff proved articles between himself and his Jer, K. B. Eaft. wife, purporting to be made after the marriage, of the wife's eftate, and which were executed by the plaintiff and his wife, with the privity of her relations, and her uncle was the truftee in the settlement; that the always went by the name of his wife, and was fo confidered by the relations on both fides; and likewise proved cohabitation, this was holden not to be fufficient. Ibid. Woolfton and Scott per Den pifen at Therford, 1753, where plaintiff was an an baptift, and recovered 500l. Baker and ball, 1739. So where the defendant was furprised at a lodging with the plaintiff's wife, and on being asked where major Morris's wife was, he answered "in the next room;" this was holden not to be fufficient, for it is only a confeffion of the reputation, and that she went by the name of the defendant's wife, and not a confeffion of the fact of the marriage. It has been doubted whether the ceremony must not be performed according to the rites of the church; but as this is an action against a wrong-doer, and not a claim of right, it feems fufficient to prove the marriage according to any form of religion, as in the cafe of Anabaptifts, Quakers or Jews. The confeffion of the wife will be no evidence against the Morley, Guild. defendant; but a difcourfe between her and the defendant may be proved. So letters written to her by the defendant may be read as evidence against him, but her letters to him will be no evidence for him. Cook and Sayer, As the gift of the action is the criminal converfation, and not the affault, the proper plea under the ftatute of limitation is not guilty within fix years. BOOK · BOOK II. For what Injuries affecting a Man's perfonal H Property, an Action may be brought. INTRODUCTION. AVING in the last book taken notice of the several injuries affecting a man's person for which an action may be brought, I fhall now confider in what cafe an action will lie for injuries affecting his property; and they divide themselves into two forts : 1. Such as affect his perfonal property. 2. Such as affect his real property. The actions that may be brought for injuries affecting his perfonal property, are, 2 Danv. 543. 4,5. Aleyn 91. Stoughton, Salk. Aleyn 91. Salk. 210. 1 Danv. 176. pl. 7. CHAPTER I. Of Deceit. ECEIT properly lies where one man does any thing DE in the name of another, by which the other is damaged and deceived; as if one without my knowledge purchase a quare impedit in my name, returnable in Banco, and after caufe it to be abated, or me to be nonfuited. So if one forge a ftatute merchant in my name, and thereupon a capias is sued out, upon which I am taken, I may have a writ of deceit against him that forged it, and him that fued the capias. But this writ lies chiefly upon recoveries obtained by covin and deceit: And in fuch cafes where the recovery is of land, it is brought to restore the party to the lands and profits: And in other cases, such as debt, &c. to give him damages: But what I intend to take notice of in the prefent chapter, are actions upon the cafe in the nature of a writ of deceit, which lie wherever a person has by a falfe affirmation, or otherwise, imposed upon another to his damage, who has placed a reafonable confidence in him; as if a man in poffeffion of a horfe, or a lottery ticket, fell it to another for his own; for poffeffion of a perfonal chattel is a colour of title; and therefore it was but a reasonable confidence, which the buyer placed in him, when he affirmed it to be his own. But it is incumbent on the plaintiff in fuch cafe to prove the defendant knew it not to be his own at the time of the fale (for the declaration must be, that he did it fraudulently, or knowing it not to be his own) For if the defendant had a reasonable ground to believe it to be his property (as if he bought it bona fide) no action will lie against him; but the defendant cannot plead fuch matter, but muft give it in evidence. So if the vendor affirm that the goods are the goods of a ftranger, his friend, and that he had an authority from him to fell them, whereas in truth they are the goods of another, and he had no fuch authority, an action will lie against him; and in such case it will be fufficient for the buyer to prove them the goods of another, without proving that the defendant knew them to be fo; (for it need not be averred in the declaration) for |