THE LIABILINY OF MARRIED WOMEN.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8148, 4 July 1906, Page 4

THE LIABILINY OF MARRIED WOMEN.

In the very interesting case of Paquin v. Holden, tlie House of Lords dealt, on tlie 2tstli March, with a matter of the utmost importance to married women and tradesmen. Messrs Parpun in the first instance saed Mrs Holden for £2is for dresses which had been supplied to her. She pleaded that she was acting as the agent of her husband, and wa« therefore not liable; But though the jury disagreed, judgment was enteied against her. The Appeal Court reTersed this decision, and decided in her faTour, but on the further appeal to the House of Lords, the House was equally divided, with the result that the judgment of the Appeal Courts stands. This is the first time that such a question lias been carrried to the House of Lords, and the consequences of the judgment are not wholly satisfactory from the business point of new, as the immunity which is conferred upon the married woman places her in a Tery peculiar and privileged position. That the House of Lords felt seme qnalrns as to its decision may be inferred from the fact of the division of opinion of the eminent legal authorities who form tlie highest court in the l»nd. A married woman is evidently free to contract what debts she likei without disclosing the fact that she is an agent for her husband. When she is sued for payment of those debts, she can plead she u an agent, and she escapes all liability. The burden of ascertaining the facts rests with the tradesman, and he is, in legal theory at all events, supposed to put to his customers of the fair sex, whose names show that they are married, a series of embarrassing questions. He must ask them whether they are " principals" or " agents," and if he does not take this precaution he supplies goods it Lis peril. In these days of acute competition, such ®nduct on the part of the fashionable tradesman would, it is to be feared, issue in the loss of custom and result is bankruptcy. As the same result would follow if he supplied the goods and found himself unable to obtain payment, he is impaled upon the horns of a dilemma. Nor must it be assumed for a moment that it is»all plain sailing for the shopkeeper, eTcn if he makes the most careful inquiry and is definitely informed that the lady ii acting as a principal. It is common knowledge that settlements are the usual rule in the upper stations of lire, and a married woman whose property is settled is again practically immune, and cannot be reached by her creditors. Thus the tradesman is once more in dill'iculties, and it is not very clear how he is to succeed in business. Definite assurances that the has given authority to the wife to incur debts, and that the wife is an agent, are, as we have already pointed out. not easy to obtain without giving offence in some direction. The existing stale of the law may be a good armmient for matrimony, but it is certainly detrimental to business. The remedy for this state of alTjir? can only be attained by a change in the law. I{ the customer is acting as an agent and has no responsibility, il should be incumbent upon her to disclose that fact. If she neglects to make such a disclosure at the outset and allows the tradesman to look to her for payment, she should be debarred from pleading at some future date that she has only been an agent, aid that therefore her estate is not bible. This was the view taken by Lord Robertson anil Lord Atkinson, and, since it is not actually law at present, it should be made such by a short Bill. It is contrary to public pilicy that any person should be permitted to enter into contracts without a clear statement as to his or her sta. tus.—"Daily Mail."