WIFE’S DRESS ALLOWANCE

Otago Witness, Issue 4028, 26 May 1931, Page 70

WIFE’S DRESS ALLOWANCE

RESPONSIBILITY OF HUSBAND CHRISTCHURCH. May 19. The question of a husband’s responsibility for debts for clothing contracted by a wife who enjoyed a dress allowance from him of £2OO a year arose in the hearing of an action before Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court to-day. Tim husband won the case on a non-suit point. The plaintiff was the Salon Celia, Ltd., milliners, and the defendant J. C. Palmer, a medical practitioner. The claim was for £ll2 8s 2d owing on goods bought by the defendant’s 'wife. Mr M. J. Burns appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M. J. Gresson for the defendant. Mr Burns said that Dr Palmer had retired from practice in Christchurch some years ago, and had lived with his wife on a farm near Kaikoura. His wife came into town for a month or two at a time, and would then buy clothing. At the beginning of 1929 Mrs Palmer arranged for a trip to England, and left in February, 1930. The account with the Salon Celia was considerably in debit at the beginning of 1929, but she promised to settle it if she were allowed to purchase further goods before leaving for England, but it was not paid before she left. When she left for England, amounts were owing to other people, and this was regarded as a kind of test case. Robert Heaton Livingstone, resident director of the plaintiff company, said it was the practice of his firm to send accounts to the wives in every case. His Honor: You see the effect of that is that a woman may conceal her accounts entirely from her husband. Mr Gresson read a letter showing that Mrs Palmer had had £2OO a year dress allowance. His Honor (to the witness Livingstone) : Why did not you write and tell the husband? Witness: Matters of this sort are rather delicate. His Honor: Did not you want the husband to know? Was it because you hoped that she would buy further goods, when you could go to the husband? Witness said he had accepted the wife’s word that she would pay. Mr Gresson: Did you not think that the defendant would dislike the unpleasantness of coming to court, and would pay the account to avoid this? Mr Gresson submitted that the plaintiff should be non-suited. His Honor said that credit had undoubtedly been given to the wife, and no application had ever been made to the husband until after the wife had gone to England. As there was no evidence to the contrary the £2OO dress allowance must be considered satisfactory. “ I do not wish to use language which might seem condemnatory,” added his Honor, “ but if tradesmen choose to act in this way they must simply write off the bad debts as against the exceptional profits they are otherwise able to make.” The plaintiff was non-suited, with the usual costs.