JUDGMENT SUMMONSES AND MARRIED WOMEN-

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 223, 21 September 1888, Page 3

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES AND MARRIED WOMEN-

AN : IMPORTANT DECiSIOI..

An important question of law bearing on the Married, .Women's Property Act was, decided by Dr. Giles at the R^M.- Court this morning. It,arose butof a, judgment; summons issued by James Close on Madame Pooley, the claim being for £3 8"s. Mr E. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by her,husband. Mr Pooley stated'that he did hot know why this actioh was taken against Madame Pooley,, the claim being for; goods supplied ■to himself for the' benefit of his fdmiilyi Madame Pooley: had; at ia'previous date, bonfessed judgment in order to. avqid.publicity, but since then had been unable tb settle the account. -He (Mr Pooley) was now so pressed-by creditor. #iat ho had beer,, compelled to file his schedule. ,;_,.-._~..;■,'...:. | Dr. Giles asked Mr Biaftbn what wali the use of applying for ah order agairisb Mrs Pooley. This was jan _ application that .the, defendanb should,be ordered imprisonment in default of payment^ and Mrs Pooley was not liable to imprisonment uhde. * the Act. The plaintiff had; got a: judgment against her, which was againsb her estate, and lie would • have to levy upon it; The* plaintiff could" not bring a judgment sUmmoiis' into Court tb find what;property there was ih brder that he might levyiipbn it. ,'"; Mr Burton argued that Mrs Pooley had ah income derived from the teaehihg of hiusib. '■'" '"'.-''"" ■.''"''' ':: '"'',;','' '''".',,' ':'. Dr. Giles: Do you hold that she can: be imprisoned under this Act 1 ' BbcausQ'itha's beeii-distinctly held that a; woman" eahhbt' be imprisoned on a judgment summons. ':_': ;Mr Burton .:I cannot say that, bub if the defendant canhot be imprisoned the plkihtiff has ho remedy. ' ' ; Dr. Giles : I. think your reiiiedy is qnljagainst hot- estate. ;'The object bf thi^ proce'edihg is that'if she'does«bt pay Elbe *is;tb be imprisoned-. *' ": :_ : A'.^A..'A'-A ,'-.' : Mr 1-bley': Sho has ho'estate. '■'' ':_ ]'"". ' \ Dr. Giles: I saw that in the Court at |)unedin a married woman was attested eta a, judgment .summons rxiado by order of justices. n: Immbdiately the fatter wa. mbhtiohed in. Court* the'Resideht Maoist ja,te directed her discharge 'without,, inquiry into any questions of es'fcate hi* property; and the counsel on th© 'opposite side cbhld allege nothing against the ruling. Mr Burton : In that case, probably the view 1 take was not brdught before -the Court, as, to whether ;,th'e vvbman was adtuSilly possessed of property. /'•'■' ';*' ;'■;' Dr. Giles: Nothing, Was brought befote' the Court at all. * -,-•'- "Mr. Burton then consented to withdraw the summons against Madame Pbolejf;; The eflecb bf this ruling, will be 4!no doubt to make tradespeople careful- U'bt tbsiipply married women, although in the case under notice, Mt Pooley stated1 that thb goods weie supplied tbTbiin.. Dr.. Giles's idling that a,woman cannot be imprisoned oh a judgment su-hmotts;,.ill; Be rather a: shock to tradespeople; bspebially following•• close . upon ■ his - recent' asser-' tidft- , that "' under the" Married Wohien'i Property , Act 'tradesmbh■:■', will require, to ■ ascertain whether '& man ; has * bbbti authorised to incur debts in tho name -'bf his":wife. -. - - ""''.