case Langham against the wife OF John bewett upon a hab cor return that the  defendant be detain for debt as a feme sole merchant the court may receive  extrinsic evidence that she be not such a trader in order to admit her to bail  as a feme covert more hetl Mod Rep burr Com dig term Rep a wife may carry on  her husband business as a feme sole trader term Rep upon a habeas corpus to  London to remove the body cum causan of the wife of bewett it be return that a  action of debt be bring against her and her husband in London as a feme sole  merchant for ware buy by the say wife wherein the a Hutton croak car er p  husband be only name for conformity and by the custom the execution shall be  only against her upon this return before the Lord Richardson he take bail de  bene be because it be affirm that the feme merchandise only for her husband in  buy wine her husband be a vintner in which case it seem she be out of the  custom and so ought not to be charge and it be move to have the direction of  the court what shall be do for the feme continue in prison croak car the  custom of London be read that a feme sole merchant be where the feme trade by  herself in one trade with which her husband do not meddle and buy and sell in  that trade there the feme shall be sue and the husband name only for  conformity and if judgement be give against he execution shall be only against  the feme Richardson and Yelverton conceive that she shall be discharge for  when it appear by examination that she use the trade which her husband use she  in law be but servant to her husband and the ware come to his use he by  intendment be to be sue and this case be out of the custom for it seem this  custom intend only where the feme use one trade and the husband another and do  not meddle with his wife trade nor the wife with the husband but when she deal  in her husband trade and in none other it shall be account her husband trade  and then the husband ought to be sue and not the wife but Hutton Harvey and  myself be of another opinion forasmuch as the writ have return that she be sue  in London as a feme sole merchant accord to the custom of London and therefore  this be such a action and cause wherewith this court ought not to meddle nor  take cognizance nor can give the party relief although he have good cause of  suit for in London they be judge of their own custom and by intendment will  proceed in their court there accord to their custom and not otherwise and  therefore we ought not to take away their privilege nor remove the action out  of that court where we can give remedy in this and it be a foreign surmise  that it appear not in the return the feme use the same trade her husband use  also they conceive although she use the same trade that her husband at any  time use as in this case be pretend yet because at that time of the contract  as be affirm the husband do not meddle with the trade but she only use it and  the husband be then in the king service beyond sea as a soldier a and although  he now return bare and needy yet as he do not meddle with the trade as be  affirm by oath and these contract be make in his absence as be likewise  testify by oath it be no reason to accept bail where a action can be ground  upon that contract in this court but to remand the cause accord to the  yearbooks of Edward pl Henry pl Edward pl Henry pl afterward it be agree and  compound and nothing do vide mich Henry roll Geppings v Harding b this case  plead and issue take whether she be a feme sole merchant in trespass for good  take by her delivery and find for the plaintiff that she be not a feme sole  merchant so that every feme sole who trade in London be not a merchant