SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16958, 6 October 1920, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

ClVir, SITTINGS. • BeTore his Honour My .Tustico Sim.) MAKRIKD AVOJIEN'S FROPIuRTY ACT. The Ofacial .Assignee (in tho csta.U> of Charles Hdwaid North"! (Mr Donnelly) claimed from Ivy Victoria Elizabeth North (Mr 0. S. Thojnasi, an Overland, motor-car, as comprising part of the assete of her hueband. Mr Donnelly said that tho cajr was need by North when he was » partner in tho firm 'of Ike North Sh.iv.- Rubber Company, which r,?rtnerehin wee dissolved in January last. In IV-iril last, soon. after North bccasno a land salwjnia 11 with Evnns and Bull, that linn nsked him to use tho car in their business; after consulting with Mrs North, he agreed to this, tho firm paying Gd per mild when tlii» car wae used in their business, and this condition beinp embodied in tho agreement covering North's employment with tho firm. In Juno North became insolvent. Counsel f-übmitt-cd that tho car was lent, or entrusted, to North, within tho moaning of 6ub-section I of section 8 of the Married "Woman's Pro}>euy Act: that that it was immaterial that North wis employed,by Evmra and Btill and not on his own account. Ho citcd Smith v. Anderson (16 Chancery Division, p. 258) to show that "business" should b© interpreted fi» "that which cccupio® tho time and uttenik>n and labour oi a man for the pirrncoc of profit." Roland Bull frave evidenco as to tho agreement between tho firm* and North.

Mr Thomas submitted that tho caso did not come within the operation of section 8 of .tho Married Women's Property Act, and cited Kcevca v. Official Asignec (1919 N.Z. Law: Imports, p. 393) in support. Defendant and her husband gave evidence. Mv Thomas submitted that ecotion 8 only rofoiTod to a business carried on by a husband on hia own account. Tho Court of Appeal had upheld tho view that it did not :»pply to a partnership: that boinfr so, then it could not bo operativo in a caso whore the -husband was the servant of a firm. Mr Donnelly cited the Official Assigne© and O'llalloran v. O'Halloran (29 N.Z. Law Rcpcrts, p. 79), and in to Donaldson (IW3, a I'-ish Reports, p. 310) in support cf tho L'lnini. .

Hi<» Honour said that tho only question was whether tho calling of a land salesman could bi treated a3 a "trade or business" within the moaning of section 8 of tho Married Women's Property -Act. North was employed merely on salary and commission, and hod no interest in the hueincoa beyond that. His Honour thought it was cleat that tho calling of land salesman wae not a "trade or business" carried on by North within the meaning of the ocction. Smith v. Anderson waa decidod under another statute, 'and had no application in tho present case. In <re Reeves F.howed that tho section was to bo construed strictly; and, construing it ertrictly, the polling of land salesman did not come within tho meaning of the eection. In the caso of a, :nan following tho calling of a land sales-

ma-n tier* no qnwlion of «ny creditor be in? deceivod by tho fact tiat ho trws usito a motor-oar bolonpins ta his wifo for tbo rmZ posoa of his occupation. Tho Official A«1 eisrneo wjbv not entitled to Tcooror, and intU nwtit vcmM be for defendant