A HUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 19, 23 January 1929, Page 8

A HUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

DEBTS OF HIS WIFE.

WHEN ALLOWANCE IS MADE.

(Bjr Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

HAMILTON, this day.

Is a husband liable for hfs wife's debts, even though he makes her an allowance considered adequate to meet them?

This question was set for Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at Hamilton yesterday in a claim for £22 14/7, brought by Mrs. F. Lawrence, ladies' clothier, against Horace Bun-ell. The amount represented goods purchased by Mrs. Burrell within three months of their legal separation.

For plaintiff Mr. W. H. King appeared, defendant being represented by Mr. D. Sevmour.

The evidence went to show that Burl rell had allowed his wife £5 per week to meet all current expenses. Tniß ehe found sufficient and was satisfied with it until difficulties arose between them, and she decided to leave him. She then allowed bills (exclusive of the present claim) to accumulate to the amount of £00.

Mr. Seymour held that where a husband allowed his wife sufficient with which to meet her accounts the husband could not be held liable. Counsel quoted authorities bearing out his contention. He quoted further authority to show that even if a husband did accompany his wife On a shopping expedition this was merely a natural thing if the credit was given to the wife. He submitted that it was neither just in law noT morally just that Burrell should be held liable for this account. " Mrs. Burrell apparently had found the amount of £5 per week sufficient to meet all current accounts until she decided to leave Win. She then allowed the accounts to accumulate, and the presumption was that she had a nice little balance When she did leave him.

Mr. King submitted that the wife in the present case was the agent of the husband,'who managed his affairs on the amount he allowed her. It was not that the husband made the wife a fixed allowance for dress and made Clear to her that this allowance was the limit she was to spend on dress. The whole question was whether the wife was agent for the husband or not.

His Worship, reviewing the evidence, commented upon the fact that the husband himself actually chose some of the articles for his wife, which was tantamount to pledging his own credit. As there apparently was* a conflict between the evidence of the husband and wife, his Worship said he Would accept the apparently straightforward statement of plaintiff that she always regarded the account as a ioint one.

Plaintiff was allowed the full amount of her claim, £22 17/, plus £8 IS/0 costs and witnesses' expenses. 'Costs of appeal were fixed at £42.