A WIFE'S DEBTS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 106, 12 August 1910, Page 8

A WIFE'S DEBTS

THE (HUSBAND'S LIABILITY. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington* Thursday. A husband's liability lor ueois contracted by his wife was a question argued in the Supreme Court to-day before the Chief Justice (S* Robert Stout) sitting in banco. The matter arose out of a case in the Magistrate's Court, where Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd., claimed from Robert Williams, ironmonger, Napier, for goods supplied. Mr. W. R. Haseiden, S.M., beiore whom the case was heard, gave judgment for plaintiffs for £52 13s 6d. Defendant (now appellant) appealed against this decision in fact and law. Mr. Young said that appeUantofor whom he appeared, was a B^}{Jf° n " monger at Napier. He and biarwife did not get on well togeiuer, -ndjbhe came to Wellington to live. M aliower her £4 a week, paid the rent, and educated their children, -nd settled her account with respondent in Napier. .lis wife traded with the same firm in Wellington, which counsel urged was a separate business. She had now left New Zealand with another man, and from the account with respondents it wo"uld seem that she had laid in a trousseau. ■His Honour: I could not tell whether there was a trousseau or not. Mr. Young referred to a mention in the account of twenty pairs of sax bought between January and March. His Honorors Were there any; efcil* reni

Mr. Young: There was a boy betweem sixteen and seventeen. Hfe- Honour: It may be proper. I see lots of handkerchiefs, some corsets, underskirts, and ribbons. Mr. Kirkoaldie (for respondents) explained that recovery for the male attire was abandoned, not as an admission, but as an ex gratia allowance. The appeal was baaed on Ave points, viz.: (1) That there was no evidence to support the judgment, and appelant was entitled to judgment upon WB evidence; (2) that there was no authority expressed or implied given by appellant to his wife to bind hia credit with respondents; (3) that respondents were aware of the separation of appellant and his wife, and. that ample allowance had been made by him for her support; (4) that appellant expressly limited the amount for which he would be responsible to respondents to £2O, and that he had paid that sum into court; (5) the claim made by respondents was either upon an alleged promise to answer for the debt of another, and no writing sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds had been proved, or upon an implied agency of appellant's wile to bind his eredit, which did not exist either in fact or law.

For respondents it was contended that appellant's wife endeavoured to pledge her husband's credit, and appellant knew of it. It was also urged that no mention was made of a limit of £2O. Judgment was reserved.

Send your order for printing to the " Daily News" Printery. Prices right satisfaction (rnarflntopd The carpenter "saw" that his wife was ill; Tb "plane," said be, you've caught a chill; Now, as a "rtfe," yon lock so strong, It worries me vphen something's wrong. To cure these "cramps," and that sore "ohest" * 111 "etraight"-way do my ♦level" best The best of I will secure, A bottle of his Great Peppermint Gore.