A WIFE'S DEBTS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 112, 19 August 1910, Page 6

A WIFE'S DEBTS.

AN UNUSUAL CASE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Thursday. The appeal of Robert Williams, i.onmonger, of Napier, against the decision of Mr. W. H. Haselden, S.M., calling upon, him to pay an account of £52 13s 6d to Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd., Wellington, for goods purchased by his wife, was decided by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday. It was pointed out that a difference had arisen between Mr. and Mrs.

Williams, and the' latter came to Wei- ] lington to reside. Her husband provided her with £4 per week and paid her house rent as well. Mrs. Williams obtained goods on credit from Kirkcaldie and Stains and left New Zealand with another man, leaving behind her a bill ' for £7O 10s 5<L The firm abandoned ' a claim for sales of male attire changed . for ini this account. The Chief Justice ; decided that Mr. Williams hiad previous- ■ ly limited his liability to £l5O. The ! Magistrate assumed, said his Honour, ; that every married woman residing with j lier husband and having general managemeat of his house, was presumed to be his agent in all matters connected with • the domestic economy of the house and ( family. She was therefore, he assumfld,' clothed with implied authority from her huslbmß to give orders for wearing ap-'; parel, provisions, etc., necessary for the 3 decent maintenance of herself and fain- f ily, according to 'the station dn life ofu her husband. In his Honour's opinion ] this was stating the law too broadly,' j and it was in direct conflict with what , was laid down in a case cited at the hearing. The mere fact of the marital < relation subsisting was mot sufficient. ■ This was not a case of a woman being : left destitute. The firm had chosen to trust Mrs. Williams for a large sum' of ( - money for drapery. In about two months' time she got £7O worth of drapery and soime of it was not for her own use but for the person with whom she eloped. She had got drapery also in previous . months which she herself had paid for. It was plain that the amount she got in drapery was an usual amount for a person in lief circumstances of life. If the evidence of, Williams was to be believed he must' succeed-, because he stated that she had an allowance given to her and was to pay her own account. I His Honour decided that judgment ought to have been given only for £2O paid into court. The costs of appeal would 'be six guineas and the costs in the court below would be fixed by the magistrate.