A LEGAL INFANT IN COURT. Caution to Tradesmen.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1392, 4 June 1881, Page 2

A LEGAL INFANT IN COURT. Caution to Tradesmen.

A case of importance to tradesmen dealing with young men of reputed means who may not happen to be well supplied with "ready cash," was heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court at its last sitting. The suit was instituted by Mr George llobson, druggist, Hamilton, against Mr William J. Smith, a settler located in the neighborhood. Plaintiff claimed a sum of £8 Os 3d for the supply of a miscellaneous assortment of articles, including such things as " conversation lozenges," " fruit salts, " "cigars," "perfumeries," etc. Defendant's counsel (Mr Macgregor Hay) filed a statement to the effect that his client claimed the benefit of "infancy," and set up that plea in defence. The point was contested by Mr O'Neill (for plaintiff), on the ground that defendant's legal guardian had not been joined with him in the defence. In support of the objection, he quoted from Clutty on Contracts, setting forth that "an infant defendant must, in all cases, appear and defend by guardian, and where judgment is given against the infant, he may assign his appearance by attorney as a ground of error." After argument, the Court ruled that as defendant's guardian was present in Court prepared to defend the action, the caso might proceed. Mr G-illet stated in evidence that defendant was his ward, and produced a certificate register of birth to show that the latter was born in the month of June 1861, and consequently was under a^e. Defendant had developed an extraordinary faculty for purchasing articles for which he had no real use. It seemed as if he was incapable of resisting the temptations of purchasing anything he might happen to see, no matter how extravagantly useless it might be for his (defendant'?) purposes. In that way witness had been called upon to disburse money most unnecessarily,, and he had resolved upon following the course he did with the view of putting tradesmen on their guard. The defendant was a young man of considerable expectations, and would eventually come into possession of a large sum of money. Mr O'Neill insisted that while defendant was not under these circumstances liable for superfluities, he was at all event 3 liable for "necessaries," and the plaint note showed the amount to be made up to a considerable extent of items of that class. Eventually this argument resolved itself into a question as to whether patent medicines, anti-bilious pills, &c, could be considered "necessaries" or "luxuries." Plaintiffs counsel cited authorities to show that "food, clothing, and medicines," rank in such cases amongst the former and counsel for the defence contended that medicines were only necessaries when prescribed by a physician. In the course of the argument it transpired defendant's guardian was prepared to liquidate all outstanding claims against his ward, and that the sole object of the proceeding was to caution' tradesmen against encouraging or even allowing defendant to contract lurther liabilities, as these would if incurred most assuredly be resisted. Mr O'Neill said that while his client admitted he was anxious to do business, he |, denied he had used undue influence in this instance a disclaimer which was not disputed by the other side. Aofcing on the recommendations of the Bench it was agreed the case should be withdrawn on the understanding that the amount claimed be paid without costs. ' j