A HUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2262, 17 June 1880, Page 2

A HUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

The Court of Appeal in England has made a decision which upsets popular belief. Mrs Mcllor, the wife of aman in a repectable position (manager of a railway hotel at Bradford), ordered some articles of dress of Messrs Debenham and Freebody upon credit, which were sent in to her at her husband’s residence in the usual course. There was no contention that the dresses were extravagant or unsuited to Mrs Mellor’s station, or overcharged, 1 or objectionable in an}' way whatever. Indeed, Lord Justice Bramwcll seems to have thought that the

very vague word “ necessaries ” might have been fairly applied to them, and no lucstion as to their price was so much is raised. Nevertheless,' when the bill was sent in, the husband refused to pay for them, alleging, quite truly and onscicufnusly, as it wouidfapnear, that he had strictly forbidden Ids wife to hay any tiling upon his credit, that she had disobeyed his commands, and that consequently lie should not pay for the Ires,ses. He adhered to his decision, and Messrs Debonhara sued him for the money. The Court, however, decided that the husband was not liable, and Messrs Debcuhavn, whose business, villi that of every other silk mercer, is attacked by the decision at the root, carried their plaint up to the Court of Appeal. There, however, three Judges —Lord Justice Bramwcll, Lord Justice Uaggallay, and Lord Justice Thesiger—unanimously agreed, in two elaborately reasoned judgments, that the Court below wore right, and that if a husband prohibited his wife from pledging his credit, that prohibition ended bis liabilit3 r , even though it was privately giveu, and remained entirely unknown to the tradesmen conncrned.”