SPECTACLES FOR WIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 216, 12 September 1929, Page 7

SPECTACLES FOR WIFE.

"NOT HOUSEHOLD NECESSITY"

HUSBAND DENIES LIABILITY.

An unusual case was heard by Mr„.E< : ;> C. Cutten, S.M., at Court to-day, iu which Barry l pud Beal?| -' Ltd.. opticians, sought ' to 'recover fronyT 1 A. L. Billing, of DargavilkMMr..-.GoukW' * ing) £2 alleged to be due for spectacles'.' < supplied to the wife of defendant. ' r':

Evidence was given for -tlie plaintiff that the spectacles- were made and for- -■> warded on a prescription received, from' • an agent in the country. The 1 sum of ' 5/ had been received, cm,account. Mr. Goulding, on behalf of defendant,' denied liabilitv.

E\idence by the defendant'was "that he had never seen the spectacles in his house. * "'va

Mr. Goulding quoted a South Africancase m which it was"nikM that'' v spec ; tacles aie. not a household necessity.'-': .* Mi. Cutten - said the point :■ or thi a * case was whether or not the spectacles, were a necessity. Had the wife bttoii unable to carry on without, the s*, >ee-'

tacles, then he thought thehusband won Id have been liable. Jji this ease", nowever, the husband had never se<*u the spectacles, which shoved they were not a necessity for the wife to carry out her household duties. Judgment was, . therefore for the defendant.