refused to give the instruction as prayed, but instructed the jury that, if the goods mentioned in the declaration were delivered to the defendant’s wife, on her credit, after the separation between them, and after the settlement of a separate maintenance by the defendant on his said wife, then the defendant is not liable for the same. But if the jury should find that the defendant expressly assumed to pay the amount of the account after the goods were delivered to his said wife, that then his express promise to pay, (if uncontradicted by proof of the credit being originally given to his said wife,) is evidence, from which the jury have a right to infer that they were delivered by his order, in which case he would be liable to the present action.