NOVEL LAW POINT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17610, 13 November 1922, Page 2

NOVEL LAW POINT.

. s _ IS WIFE RESPONSIBLE TOR HUSBAND'S ACTS? The attention of Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., was occupied for some time at Wellington on Thursday hearing the case of A. R. Hisiop, Ltd. v. F. £)• itomann, clerk, and M. J. Homann, dressmaker, his wife. This was a claim tor dtiaO for arrears of rent lor a ietu>e sign<sd_Dy Air .tiomann' only, and tw damages ror breacn of lease ana a claim tor rent tor "use and occupation" of tne same premises. Mi - (i. 'ioogooa, who Appeared for the plaintiff, stated that tms was a novel iorm of action, inasmuch as the wite had not signed'the lease, but he submitted that he was entitled to open up the question of the signing oi tne lease to show that the lease, although signed by the husband alone, was intended for tne wife's benefit, as the premises were taken for her for the purpose of enabling her to carry on business as dressmaker. It was on that ground that the wife had been joined as a party on a claim for damages for use and occupation of the same premises. Mr J. A. Scott, for the defendants, admitted that if the plaintiff succeeded this would open up a very wide field, as it might be contended that every lease taken by a hushand alone would also be for the benefit of the wife. He admitted it was a novel claim which had been raised, but contended that whilst the plaintiff might succeed against the husband he could not succeed against the wife.

After hearing legal argument, his Worship reserved his decision.