RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1632, 13 September 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, 10th September. Agnes Muir was charged by the police with sly K ro S selling, at Wallacetown, and fined £20, with costs, £2 10s. Hare v. Gibson was a claim for £15, money lent. Mr Wade appeared ibr plaintiff, and Mr Matthews for defendant. It appeared that some eighteen months ago the defendant became insolvent, and the plaintiff was appointed trustee for the creditors on the estate. At that time there was a sum due by defendant tn his landlord, Bush, for rent. The landlord being of unsound mind, no application was made br him to the plaintiff for this amount, and the proceeds of the estate were dirided amongst the creditors, with the exception of the landlord, who subsequently died. Mr Alexander Macdonald, who had been appointed legal guardian of the landlord's infant son, applied to Mr Hare for the rent. Mr Hare stated in reply that there was no money left of the estate. Mr Wade, on behalf of Mr Hare, then wrote to the defendant requesting him to come to town about the property. His wile came in his plaoe. According to Mr Hare's statement, Mrs Gibson, defendant's wife, ask d Mr Hare to advance the £15 required for the rent, promising repayment of the same, and this eventually Mr Hare agreed to, writing a cheque for £15, which he handed to Mrs Gibson, who haided it in his presence to Mr Macdonald. Mr Macdonald, however, stated that he did not see the cheque handed to Mrs Gibson, nor did he hear her promise repayment. The defendant's wife, on the other side, denied generally the allegation of Mr Hare as to her borrowing the money, and also stated that she nevor promised to repay money, and that she had no authority from her h'isbu,nd to borrow money to pay the rent. It was contended by defendant's counsel that the payment oi the money had not been proved, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover in any case, as a wife had no authority to borrow money on behalf of her husband. For the plaintiff it was contended that the loan had been proved, and that the circumstincss amounted to a delegation of authority to the wife sufficient to make the defendant responsible. Jlis Worship reserved his decision. Wednesday, 11th September. Allan Johnson, charged by the police with allowing a bullock, known to be dangerous, to wander at large in the neighborhood of Clifton, on the Bluff road, was fined £1, aDd £1 3s 6d costs. 7 Thursday, 12th September. His Worship gave his decision in Hare v. Gibson as follows :— The £15 was advanced as a loan, by plaintiff to defendant ; and as to the point raised that Bhe was not authorised by the husband to pledge his credit for the loan, it was true that married women have in general no implied authority to borrow money and charge their husband with the repayment of it, but such an authority may be, and often is, implied under certain circumstances. It bad been shown that Mrs Gibson acted for her husband generally, purchased goods, managed his business, paid the rent, and came down on this very occasion, with the sanction of her husband, to settle about the arrears of rent. Her business seemed to have been, on the part of her husband, the settlement of the arrears of rent, and. as a neceaaary and obvious means to the attainment of that object she borrowed the money from the plaintiff, and the defendant therefore was liable for the repayment. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 19s.