A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 55, 29 November 1923, Page 11

A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY

FURTHER ECHO OF NASH CASE. Reserved decision was delivered by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate g Court yesterday on the case of Y illiam Ronald Shillson v. William Nash, a claim for £l3O, together with interest. It was alleged that this amount had been advanced by plaintiff to Mrs. Nash, his sister, during her visit to England. The money was borrowed by her for the purpose of purchasing tickets for herself and her two children. .... The ground on which the action was based said the Magistrate, was the proposition that the advance of the money was a necessary supplied, to defendant’s wife, and that ho’BS » necessary defendant was liable tner for. Him ‘Worship was of opinion that on several grounds plaintiff’s claim chould fail. Firstly, it was to be observed that the . rule whereby a wife was presumed to have authority to pledge her husband’s credit for necessaries supplied to her. applied primarily where the husband and wife were living together. The parties were not, in his view, living together, hut were separated for n more or less definite period bv mutual consent. For that reason there was no implied authority on the part of the wife to pledge her husband’s credit. Secondly, it seemed that on the facts disclosed Mrs. Nash did not pledge her husband’s credit for the repayment of the money. It was urged for plaintiff that the action was brought not on the promissory-note, hut on the original loan. The position, however, was the same. Fhirdly. it seemed at least doubtful whether the supply of the monev was a necessary. If defendant bad left his wife abandoned without means in England there might be more force in the contention. Judgment was given for defendant with costs.