A WIFE'S LOAN

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 128, 27 November 1923, Page 7

A WIFE'S LOAN

HUSBAND HELD NOT LIABLE ECHO OF THE NASH CASE. _ Interesting observations regarding the liability of a husband towards a wife who, by mutual consent, is living apart from him were made by Mr. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day m delivering judgment in the' case William Ronald Shillson against William Harry Nash. The claim was for £130, together with interest, an amount which had been advanced by the plaintiff to Mrs. Nash, his sister, during her visit to England: The money was borrowed by Mrs. Nash for the purpose of purchasing tickets for herself and her two children. The ground on which the action was baaed said Mr. Page, was the proposition that the advance of the money was a necessary supplied to the defendant's wife, and that, being a necessary, the defendant was liable therefor. He was of the opinion that on several grounds the plaintiff's claim should 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 eupplied to her applied primarily where the husband and wife were living together. The parties were not, in his view, living together, but were separated for a more or less indafimte period by 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 to him that on the facts disclosed Mrs Nash did not pledge her husband's credit for repayment of the money It was urged for the plaintiff that the action was brought not on the promissory note but on the original loan. The position, however, was the same. Thirdly, it seemed to him at least doubtful whether the supply of the money was a necessary. If,the defendant had left his wife abandoned without means in England there might be more force in the contention. But there was in the evidence no suggestion of that. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs. At the hearing, Mr. G. Toogood appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. D. R. Hoggard for the defendant.

••ffi e Ti C« bi" S ewa in th!" 15W4 aeeredifced te