A DRAPER’S BILL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4957, 29 March 1926, Page 3

A DRAPER’S BILL.

■ creih'Xfob. clothes. HUSBAND’S POSITION DEFINED. .: Mr E. Page, S.M., deliveJied his reserved judgment in the Magistrate’s Court at Wellington last week on a nonsuit point raised , by- Mr H. F. O'Leary during- the hearing of the caise in which Kifkcaldie and Stains, Ltd.-, * proceeded against Randolph ■ Percy Sims, civil servant, and Betty Sims, his wife. The action was the outcome of clothing valued .at £34'being allegedly supplied by. plaintiff to Mrs Sims. Defendants were proceeded against jointly,, and,' .as an alterna? tive, a claim was made, against , the wife’s separate, estate. ' At the previous hearing, after Mns Sims had given evidence, Mr O’Leary, who appeared for the husband, said he was entitled to a judgment or nonsuit, on the ground that the credit was given to the wi'fe, .and that there was. no evidence that she. was holding out to be Mr Sims’ agent. ( •. In /delivering his judgment the Magistrate sa,id that in, the present case‘the procedure .adopted by - plain-, tiffs and Mrs Sims, was typical of that'followed'in the ordinary ease of • a wife opening an account for the supply of goods .to her husband's household. Mrs Sims . had received credit after-. stating tha,t her husband was in a good position in the- Railway Department, receiving a salary off £BOO a' year. Looking at .the -.whole of the facts, he thought _ that Mrs ■ r ' Simsi, when incurring the liability, did iso ' on behalf of, and a,s agent for, Mr Sims, and that plaintiffs, when giving ■ her credit, -dealt with her on that basis. . .■< j■. • “Prior.to, and at the hearing,” pro r ‘ ceeded Mr Page-, “objection was taken by Mr Sims that though' he and Mrs Sims’were living together as man and ; wife, he was not in truth validly mar- ' rii?d-to her. In the view that I take of the matter, I do not find it necessary ,to. inquire into- the- validity of the. marriage ceremony. that is said to - have taken, place ■ between- these /parties. There is a presumption of fajct that where, a husband and wife ■ are living together the wife has authority as the agent of the husband to pledge hfs credit'for- the purchase of ' necessaries suitable to. their style of living, and belonging to a 'department, of the household usually entrusted to the wife. . -■ . "As the evidence at-present stands I think that I must, hold that the goods, or, the large majority of them a ; re in their nature necessaries, .*1 am unable, therefore, to sustain any ' of the,.objections taken by counsel; for Mr Sims, and I accordingly refuse the nonsuit.”