HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 821, 19 May 1910, Page 4

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

A QUESTION OF LEGAL LIABILITY. INTERESTING ARGUMENT. (Br Telt.xra.Dh.—Special 'CorresDondcnt.l Auckland, Itiay 18. Ail interesting argument- on tho question of a husband's liability at law for bis wife's misdemeanour in slanderous statements occurred during the hearing of an application, made before Mr. Justice Edwards in Chambers on Monday, to have the name of Walter King struck out of the proceedings in the action, Maggie Martin v. Walter and Maria King, for an alleged slander uttered by his wife. Mr. Earl, in making the application, admitted that the English authorities were absolutely against his contention that since the passing of the Married Women's Property Act a husband was 110 longer responsible for the torts, that is to say, tlio wrongs, committed by his wife; but counsel pointed out that in the latest English case 011 the subject (Cuenod v. Leslie, 1909), the judges of the Court of Appeal expressed considerable doubt as to the correctness of the subsisting decisions 011 the point in ((uestion, and expressed a desire that the House of Lords should settle the matter. Mr. Earl also cited tht judgment of the High Court of Australia in the case of Brown and wife (appellants) v. liolloway (respondent), decided in December last, in which the learned judges unanimously held that the English authorities wero no longer good law, and that a husband was not now responsible for his wife's torts. Without hearing Dr. Bamford' (who appeared to oppose the application), his Honour said he did not feel called upon to express any views of his own ..as .to _the soundness of the judgment of the High Court of Australia, but he. could not in these proceedings decide that the English authojjties were to .be disregarded until tlio -point was further tested. Ho fcit constrained to be bound by the English Court of Appeal, to which the- High Court of Australia was not hound. His Honour added that the question was of immense importance, and, 110 doubt, would sooner or -later be finally and conclusively dealt with by tlio House of Lords. " Ho was obliged, therefore, to dismiss the application.