case tod against stokes a husband be not liable to debt contract by his wife  after notorious separation and maintenance allow her S c salk S c holt S c ld  ray the plaintiff a apothecary sue the defendant a parson live in Chichester  for physic administer to his wife in London on non assumpsit plead it appear  on evidence that the defendant and his wife have be part by consent for five  year last pass and that on separation by article to trustee of the wife name  the defendant have oblige himself to allow the wife twenty pound ayear which  he do accord and have a covenant from the trustee to exonerate he of all the  charge of the wife and that the plaintiff do not know the wife to be a feme  modern report covert at the time of the medicine give and by holt chief  justice these point be hold first that the reason why the husband shall pay  debt contract by the wife be upon the credit the law give her by implication  in respect of cohabitation and be like credit give to a servant a second that  if husband and wife part by consent and the husband secure her a allowance it  be in consideration that he shall not be charge any more by her and it be  unreasonable he shall be charge for victual or physic or other necessary after  b three that a personal knowledge of such agreement be not necessary so it be  public and notorious know c fourthly that such public knowledge of the  agreement need not be at London where the debt be contract but be sufficient  if it be where the party live videlicet in this case at Chichester d five that  if the debt be contract by the wife in so short a time after the agreement as  it can not be know at Chichester in that case the husband will be liable six  if a husband turn away his wife he must send credit with her for reasonable  expense f seven if a wife go away without consent of her husband she shall  find credit where she go without any charge to her husband or his give any  personal notice of leave he and be say the case of scot v Manby g have be  carry too far in this and be remember a case before he at Exeter assize  Lungworthy v Huckmore h where he hold that if a wife elope from her husband  and take up necessary from a tradesman who have no notice of the elopement the  husband shall not be liable and it be sufficient for the husband to give  general notice that tradesman c shall not trust his wife but sergeant wright  now Lord keeper at the same time acquaint his lordship that Treby chief  justice of the common plea have rule that point otherwise in a action between  the same party I to which holt chief justice say that notwithstanding he will  adhere to his opinion in all the point aforesaid and the plaintiff be nonsuit  king a see lev b Ferrer v Ferrer vern angies v angies Prec in Chan dent v  Scott Allen Craig v Bowman Mod corbel v Polenitz term Rep Compton v Collinson  h Bl Rep bro c c ellah v leigh term Rep c see Craig v Bowman Mod d angies v  angies pale yellow e r f etherington v Parrott salk Thompson v Harvey burr g  side lev h will I see car v king post king see upon the subject of a husband  liability to pay debt contract by his wife Mr Evans note to etherington v  Parrott salk that edit Mr Nolans note to the case of Bolton v apprentice  strange d edit and the note to the case of Manby v Scott Mod modern report er  p