A WIFE'S DEBT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 125, 28 May 1932, Page 11

A WIFE'S DEBT.

HUSBAND NOT LIABLE.

BILL FOR DRAPERY. PAYABLE OUT OF WEEKLY ALLOWANCE. COURT ALLOWS APPEAL. The liability of a husband for dehts incurred by his wife was ,the main point jit issue in a case decided by a judgment of the Supreme Court issued to-day. It was an appeal against die decision of Jlr. E. C. Cutton, S.M., and was considered by Mr. Justice Smith.

Recently Smith and Caughey, Ltd., took action in the lower Court against A. R- Townsend, claiming the sum of £9 16/4, being the price of goods supplied to his wife. Judgment was given for the firm, but against this Mr. Townsend appealed, and important points of Jaw were raised.

In hie. judgment to-day his Honor said the question raised by the appellant was whether the vife contracted with the j-espondent company "otherwise tlian a.n pgent" at the time the goode were purchased. At that time the wife was Jiving with her husband in the ordinary way. The goods were suitable to her fiosition in life as the wife of the appelant. Accordingly there was a prima facie presumption that she contracted as £gent for her husband, Regular Alltftvance. "The que.?tion," said his Honor, "may tie considered in this case by asking, in the first place, what was the wife' 3 intention when s'.ie entered into the contract. Did she intend to contract as a principal or as an agent? It seems flear that the only reasonable inference from the facts is that she intended to contract on her own account a« a principal. The goods, in question were purchased in June, 1931. For a long time prior to the purcliaso of Uie gooas, the wife had received from the appellant a regular weekly allowance of £5 15/. Out of this allowance or out of thie al'cnvpnes together with moneys belonging to hersslf, the wife paid for all household expenses and for clothes for herself and the child, and for dancing and elocution Jessoas for the child. Went to Sydney.

"In September, 1931, the wife left on a trif to Sydney. Prior to this trip tho appellant had not been called upon to pay any accounts for debts incurred by his wife. The wife, who was the only witness called by the respondent, admittel that she would previously have paid the bill in question out of her own means had she been able to do so. L'lie only reason slie had not done so vas because sho had spent her money on a trip to Sydney for health reasons. It ie true that she did not receive nnj money from her husband to enablo her. to go to Sydney, but from Sydney she wrote a letter to the appellant on Sepember 30, 1931, in which she &aid, 'I did lot intend to leave you any bills. You Inow I have- never clone that in iny life.'' •, Hiiiband's Earnings.

The judgment further states that the husband's earnings for the last three years had beui £1000. The husband was paying nearly a third of his income to his wife, <nd she Was using that allowance, or that allowance plus moneys of her own, to pay for certain specified things, including clothing. She had a fixed allowance to cover clothing and had acted >i it for many years, including the ytars when her husband earned £2000 per annum. She had never in the past left her husband any bills in respect if clothing, and she had never at any tine intended to do eo. The wife had ncer intended to contract as an agent. Sle meant to contract ' as a principal. His Honor saic it was a reasonable inference from tie facts stated in the case that the }arties regarded the allowance mado by the husband as sufficient for the purpose of providing the wife and child with clothing. "That is a good defence where no question arise*—and none arises here —as to the wife being an 'agon; of necessity,' " said his Honor.

The appeal was allowed with coste, £5 5/, to be paid by the respondent company. The case was remitted to the Magistrate's Court vith a direction to enter judgment in favour of the appellant. :