DRESS BILLS OF WIVES

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 123, 27 May 1922, Page 16

DRESS BILLS OF WIVES

EXTRAVAGANCE OF A

COUNTESS

LIMITS OF A HUSBAND'S CREDIT

AN HISTORICAL JUDGMENT.

O'kok oor own coimisronm.)

LONDON, Bth April.

This -week" Mr. Justice M'Cardie heard evidence in a case in which, a certain dressmaking firm sued Earl Cathcart for £215 55,. a debt incurred by Countess Cathoart for eight gowns supplied in 1921. The Judge postponed his decision for three days, for, he said: "I thinK the tima has come when the burdens of husbands and the rights of\shopkeepers should ba definitely stated," and the Judge promised to interpret the law ■''with the -utmost clearness." The judgment, which has now been delivered, is of some historic importance, for- it ie applicable to almost "every home in the land—certainly to every tradesman. His LordshipMelined the law regarding the light of a wife to pledge her husband's credit. He said that marriage -itself.gives her no a-utijority.' at all. "Husbands," comments one of the London dailies, "will be inclined to liken Mr. Justice M'Cardie to a...-Daniel come to judgment. WiveSj on the other hand, may see in him more than a trace of Paul in the pulpit and in one of his slightly misogynist moods. In reality, however, neither sex has any grounds for complaint either against his judgment or against his aphorisms, for the rules of domestic economy which' he sketched out1 are the only practical and sensible rules, and those only will resent his little sermon who stand most in need of it. The only people who may find cause to regret his judgment are the purveyors of those frills and furbelows which are so dear U> the feminine heart— and to the masculine purse. No longer will they be able, like the serpent of old, to tempt the wife and. involve the husband in her fall. No longer will they be able to drive both from the Eden of solvency into the wilderness of Caraystreet. The result will very probably be that a number of ladies -will have to pay cash on delivery, and that they will in consequence order rather fewer dresses and while the dressmakers may be. a few pence the poorer the husbands will be many pounds the richer in consequence."

ALLOWANCE OF £960 A YEAR.

Earl Cathcart's case was that he allowed his wife £960 a year, and that she had no right to pledge his credit. This view was upheld by the Judge. In February the Earl obtained a divorce against his wife, and cited the Earl.of Craven as co-respondent. In his judgment, Mr. Justice M'Oardie said the case raised in a definite fashion the right of a wife to pledge her husband's credit. It was important to tradesmen, and equally to husbands. It was of direct interest also to wives ; more so because of the modern growth.in the rights of married women and the vast change effected in their status by the Sex Disqualifications Act, 1919.

The main defence of the Earl was that, he made his wife an adequate allowance to include dress, and that she had no authority to incur this debt on his behalf. The Countess gave> her evidence before an examiner, and it had been read to him. The Earl gave his evidence in the witness-box in a, clear, frank,- and honourable manner, and the Judge' accepted his testimony without the slightest hesitation. After the marriage, tha Earl found that the Countess was an extravagant .woman; who had.no sense of the value of money, and no notion of the rules of economy,' and ho soon found claims by creditors flowing in. He had not at first given his wife an 'allowance.

SPENT £1500 IN TEN DAYS.

The reason for this was that soon after the mapriage ho had guaranteed her ab the; bank for £1500. Ere long he was called on to pay that amoutit, as she had spent the whole of it in ten days, and she then came to him witb a demand for more money. In September, 1919, it became plain that a definite arrangement was needed, and after discussion the Etui agreed to give his wife £80" monthly. She said that,was liberal, and the Judge thought she was right. The Earl made it clear that it was the utmost he could afford, and expressly forbade her to pledge his credit. It was plainly stated that it was to include all expenses for dress, her travelling, taxi-cabs, and other little matters, including a governess. Although the defendant was an earl he was not a rich man—on the contrary, he might be said, in -view of his rank, to be a distinctly poor man.. A burden on a man inoreassd with his social position, and a high rank often indicated a low balance at the bank. His allowance to liis wife was practically one quarter of his whole net yearly income. It was in these circumstances, and while the.Earl was paying this allowance; that this debt of £215 was incurred.

MAEBIAGE GIVES NO AUTHORITY.

It was necessary to consider a wife's authority in a case like the present. Marriage itself save the wife no authority at all. That had been recognised law^ since the time of Henry VIII. The bonds of matrimony were not the foundation of agency. The wife could bind a husband only as agent, and a party seeking to charge him with the contract of the wife must prove his authority The burden of proof was fox- the creditor. If, then, marriage itself gave no authority, how could authority arise? It could^ of course, be expressly given by the husband. If so, he woald be liable for what be authorised;- but there was no question of express authority. "Authority could be given also by a course of dealing by which the husband had impliedly conferred authority on the wife. No. such question arose here. The Countess did not deal with the plaintiffs until June last, gpid-she was a-noweustomer. When the- parties lived in the usual way there was assumption that the.wife had authority to pledge the. husband's credit..- In such a case the word "presumption" lay at the root of the matter. The presumption from cohabitation was one of fact only, and not one of law. How, then, was the presumption of fact to be rebutted? There were sweral methods which had been laid down. They were these: The husband could negative liability by proving either (1) that he expressly warned the tradesman not to supply goods on credit; (2) that the wife was already supplied with a sufficiency of the articles in question; (3) that the wife was supplied with a sufficient allowance without pledging the husband's credit; (I): that the husband expressly forbade his wife to pledge his credit; (5) that the order, although': for necessaries, was excessive in point of extent, or, having regard to the smaOness of the husband's income, extravagant.

HUSBAND MUST FIX STANDARD

OF LIVING.

With regard-to the question of a- fixed allowance, if the allowance wovo-. accompanied, as iir the present case, hy the express prohibition by the husband that the wife "was not to pledge his credit, it followed that the authority of the wife was non-existent. In tho opinion of the Judge authority in this' case was quite absent, for tho husband made a fixed allowance, even though he did not 'expressly prohibit his wife from pledging Jus credit. That, ho thought, sprang from implication from the very nature- of

tho arrangement was that the husband should limit his financial responsibility, and the plain implication was that his wife should have no right to pledge his credit in respect of matters covered by the allowance. Even if the allowance were not agreed, if it were : fixed in amount and clearly allowed to his wife, it I 61"?, her oi a»y-agency to pledge the husband's credit. The Earl paid the allowance with unfailing regularity. It was for.the Husband, not for the wife, to fix the scale or standard of their social and domestic life. He must provide her with the necessary meat and medicine, but the wife was not to be her own career. p lf a tradesman found a wife giving extravagant orders unsuited to the husband's estate and apparent condition of life, he ought, if he intended to look to the husband for payment, to ■ascertain whether the latter were aware of the wife's extravagance, and whether he did or did not sanction it. Mr. Justice M'Cardie was not satisfied that the eight dresses ordered by the Countess were necessary for her social needs. She was already in" possession of sufficient dresses to meet her proper requirements. Her husband lived, and wished to live, quietly within, his income. His wife desired, as her conduct showed, to live with reckless extravagance.

GOWNS FOR HER ELOPEMENT.

She choso, moreover, as her social associates, those of whom the Earl had good reason to disapprove. Her prodigality was for them and, not for the man whom she had married. His Lordship said he believed that she really desired the gowns which she purchased with a view to her elopement to Deauville with the Earl of Craven. Economy might be required from a countess as. fully as from those who were humble in the social scale. On the facts of the documents, he should hold that credit was given to the Countess and not to the Earl. It was plain that the Earl never ratified or sanctioned in any way the conduct of his wife. On the contrary, he at once repudiated her acts. He rightly, issued a public warning in July last that he would not be responsible in any way for her debts. ,

NOT THE MARK OF A GENTLEWOMAN. . -,';.

Extravagance was not the mark of a g6ntle\y;oman. Profusion was not a necessity to honourable rank. Simplicity was an essential feature'to useful and beneficient female, citizenship. H« failed to see circumstances whioh would justify 50 or 60 dresses in the course of a year. Prodigality was a feminine fault, and not a femine merit. In the life of Nero by Tuetonius it was said: "Nullam v«stem bis induit"—"H« never wore the same garment twice." This was mentioned by the historian not as a merit, but as a defect of one of the Roman Emperors. Extravagance was not to be commended in times when" the stress of life was ever growing, when the social structure was being tested, and when the standaa-d of simple and laborious life was cogently needed for, the national welfare. In conclusion, the Judge held that the plaintiffs took the risk that the Countess had no authority, and did not apply to the for information. There must be judgment for the Earl, with costs; In reference to,this case a "Peeress" writing to the Evening News, stresses "the impossibility" of a woman happily appearing in society weaning the sains costume or hat for any length of time. It is a strange fact that in, a big world there are millions of women who find it quite possible to be happy with a small wardrobe. Those who are able to afford £1(^0 a year for clothes 'account themselves fortunate in thousands of cases, while there are even, more women who spend less—and yet are happy women. Possibly the fact that more women do not press for altered social laws is the fact that the parasite woman who extracts the uttermost and a little more from man, and loads him with every possible responsibility, is still extant in great number. Nothing but education and the expressed approval of man of a higher type of woman will rid the. earth of the extravagant fool who lives only to clothe and pamper her body.