IN BANCO.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 898, 18 August 1910, Page 3

IN BANCO.

TESTATOR'S TWO FAMILIES.

INTERESTING DECISION.An interesting judgment relating to the Family Protection Act was given yesterday iii Banco by the Chief Justice (bir Robert Stout) in the ease of Caroline Worthington v. Arthur Montague Ongley and Patrick .Tamos Kelly, executors ot the will of- the late Lawrence Artliui Robert Worthington. The- testator, who was an insurance agent residing at Bulls, was killed-in a motor-car accident near .that place in October, 1908. In his will he bequeathed .£IOO each to his two illegitimate clul-' dren.'and the remainder of his .estate to his widow, Caroline Worthington. lour children of the marriage arc living, me testator's whole estate consisted of an insurance policy on his own lite .tor •£SOO. The widow applied to the Court by way of an application under I art - of the Family Protection Act, to take the JJ2OO from the illegitimate children and give it to her and her children. Mr. V. Levi appeared in support of the application, and Mr.F. ; G. Bolton- opposed it on behalf of the illegitimate children. His Honour, in his judgment, said: 1 am of opinion that this is not a case in :which the Court should interfere. J.he testator had a moral duty to support his illegitimate children, and I do-not consider that they should bo-left penniless. If if had been proved that their mother had means, the case would have been different. They have no.one to rely on but their mother, and there is no information'about her means. It has not been suggested that she has' any, or that she has well-to-do relatives who can or will support her. - Further, there is no information as to the means of the.relatives of the widow further than that at present she is being helped by her.father. It may be that she has relatives that can assist her and-that. the.illegitimates have no one.that can assist them. , -.. "Before the Court' could interfere. in such a case it would have to be clear that' the illegitimates had support from some quarter. That does not appear. It is assumed by the. applicant that tho mere fact that illegitimates have got part of the. small estate entitles her to'ask .that their part should be given to.her. I am of opinion that that is not sufficient ground. Application. dismissed u-ith £i '4s. costs and any disbursements." A WOMAN'S DRAPERY; BILL. HUSBAND'S APPEAL. ' '■' In a judgment delivered in Banco yesterday, the Chief Justice reversed a decision by which.Mr. W. R. Haselden,S.M., had made a husband liable for his wife's drapery. bill in somewhat' unusual circumstances. .-■',' The proceeding's in the lower, court were commenced by Kirkcaldio and Stains, Ltd., of Wellington, who claimed £70 10s. sd. from Robert Williams, of Napier, in pavriient for drapery goods supplied to Mrs. Williams, -who was at that time living in, Wellington, while her husband remained at Napier.;. The magistrate gave judgment for '£52 13s. 6d., and Williams appealed to the Supreme Court. : Tho case on appeal.was argued;by Mr. T. Young (for the appellant), and Mr. S. Kirkcaldio (for the icspondent). His Honour, in the judgment.: he delivered yesterday, said that,the magistrate had assumed that every married woman residing with her husband and having the general management' of his house was presumed to be his agent in all matters ■connected wit'i the 'domesticeconomy of tho lio'uso-and fainiljy-and; :Was, therefore, clothed with an implied authority from tie husbaul to .give orders for-wearing, apparel, provisions, etc.,; necissary for tha dcco.it :nainteuaace::of herself and-family, according to the-sta-tion in life .'jf her husband. In his Honour's opinion,, that. was stating the law too broadly.a'nd was'in conflict with authorities. The.mere fact of the marital relation subsisting was not sufficient. This was not a case of a woman being left destitute. If-that .were the case, different consideritibns- woull arise. Correspondence between the respondent firm 'and the manager of their Napier busi'nesi, and ovidonce as to the . convorsa-. ;tion between the latter and Williams, were review-id by his, Honour, who considered that the ell.ect of, .mailers iwas not to extend the agency" of the wife, but to limit it; The inference was that if she did not pay, /her husband would pay up to .£2O, not' that he .would' pay for goods'up to any amount. The ■firm, however, chose >o trust the wife for a. largo sum of ,uioney. In about two months' lime she got ,£7O woirh ofdrapery, and some of it was not for hef own use, but for a uor.son with whom she eloped. Sho had got draper;,- ; also 'in-the'months before, which she herself had paid for. It was plain that .the amou.it she'got in drapery was an unusual amount for a person in her circumstances of life. Of course, if the evidence of the appellant-was to lie believed, there was no doubt that he must succeed, because he stated that sh'e had an allowance given to her and was to pay her own accounts. If, however, other evidence was considered, and the circumstances looked at, it appeared to his Honour. It> slum- tint tlie v apj:-ii!a!.t actually limited the amount to whiih he would be liable, arid ho had a right to do so, as his wife was in the position of an agent for him. The judgment of the magistrate onght to have been only: for the .£'2o which had • beeii paid into ■court. ■; ! The appeal was allowed, and judgment given for .£2o,,being, the amount,paid into'court.' Costs of appeal six guineas; costs in the court below to bo fixed by the magistrate.' . ':."