WIFE’S DEBTS

Hokitika Guardian, 30 May 1932, Page 5

WIFE’S DEBTS

AUCKLAND COURT CASE.

HUSBAND IS NOT LIABLE.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association,

AUCKLAND, May, 23,

The liability of a husband for debts incurred by his wife was the main point at issue at the Supreme Court, in an appeal case in which judgment wo® given to-day by Mr Justice Smith.

A drapery firm sued a man for £9 16s 4d for goods isuplied to his wife and obtained judgment, but the Supreme Court now ai 1 lowed the husband to appeal. The Judge said that for a long time prior to the purchase of the goods the wife had had a weekly .allowance of £5 15s with which she paid all the household expenses and bought clothes for herself and her husband. Last September the wife went to Sydney and she had admitted that ishe would have paid the drapery bill if she had not spent the money on the trip. The Judge concluded that the wife had never intended to contract the debt as an agent, but as a principal. She had never in' the past left her husband any bills in respect to clothing. It was reasonable to infer that the parties regarded the. wife’s allowance a>s sufficient, and that was a good defence where no question arose as to the wife being an agent. The appeal qqs ail]owed with £5 5s costs.