ACCOUNT FOR DRAPERY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 190, 12 August 1922, Page 11

ACCOUNT FOR DRAPERY.

OBDEBED BY A WIFE. . HUSBAND FOBBIDS CREDIT. The suit of Smith and Caughey, Ltd. (Mr. Inder), against Esmond Napier, of Devonport (Mr. Luxford), for £139 12/6, the amount of an account for drapery, was concluded at the Supreme Court 'before Mr. Justice Herdman and jury, the verdict heing in favour of defendant. 'William J. Citlpan, credit manager at John Court's, said defendant notified them on August 22 to sttup credit to Mrs. Xapier. The account was then in her name, and Mr. Napier paid it to date. Cross-examined by Mr. Luxford, witnest, eaid he had seen Mrs. Napier c ledger account recently, but he had never known it to go to £100 in two months. Defendant said in June last year he •arranged to give his wife an allowance of £3 per week, which she said was sufficient to keep her in clothes and necessaries. He forbade her to pledge his : credit, but he eventually found it necessary to write informing certain firms. Mrs. Napier's allowance was reduced to £2 till January, and was then increased io £3 in March. It was reduced because the allowance to defendant by his father had ceased. Defendant was keeping the house for his father, who was abroad. Defendant had his father's housekeeper, who looked after the house and ibought everything.

To hie Honor: She was getting £3 per week from mc and Tunning up this bill all the time. WHEN" THE SHOCK CAME. To Mr. Luxford: He first heard of this account in March, and he repudiated it. He had disputed several accounts since the allowance was given his wife. He denied having entertained. Defendant was cross-examined at length by Mr. Inder, to whom he said the £3 allowance was to cover clothing and necessaries. His wife had never worn any of the frocks ill connection with this account, or he would have ■known about the account. She evidently kept the material at her father's place. She would come into town, put on a naw frock and then take it off on going home. Defendant denied having β-harce in various concerns mentioned except in one case, where he retained 13 shares. His father had been very good to him. His car coab him 12/6 per week to run, and he lived on £6 per week. Mr. Luxford pointed out that defendant had forbidden Mrs. Napier to pledge his credit, and had given her a reasonable allowance.

Mr. Inder said it was curious that this account was the only one to which defendant up to that time had objected. The jury would have to consider defendant's social standing. A QUESTION OF MEANS. His Honor said the law permitted a wife who was cohabiting with her husband to pledge hie credit. Aβ to the question of what constituted necessaries, his Honor «aid that what was a necessary in one case, was not essentially one in another, depending- on the station in life of the people concerned. A woman was presumed to be her husband's agent, but that authority was nullified cither if the husband forbade the wife to pledge his credit or gave 'her an allowance or income sufficient to buy necessaries, the articles in question being considered by defendant to be unnecessary. His. Honor implied that the account for a little over six months drapery certainly seemed beyond the means of a law clerk, even if he did move in social circles. After referring to some details of the purchases, including several frocks obtained at short intervale, the judge remarked that the evidence did not disclose the defendant to be in affluent circumstances, and he invited to jury to look through the "long catalogue" of items in the account.

The jury returned a verdict for defendant, his Honor directing costs to te fixed by the Registrar.