BILL FOR TEETH

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 96, 20 October 1933, Page 16

BILL FOR TEETH

HUSBAND TO PAY

Judgment for 25 guineas, less 10 guineas already paid into Court, was given in the Magistrate's Court yesterday against G. W. Willey, a managing director, who together with, his wife, Alice Jane Willey, who is now separated from him, was sued by G. W. Wright, a denture specialist, for 25 guineas, the balance, of an account for 30 guineas, allegedly owing to Wright for making a double set of teeth for Mrs. AVilley before the separation. The judgment was against G. AY. AVilley only and costs against him amounted to £13 9s.

The first part of the case was reported in last night's 'Tost." Continuing yesterday afternoon, evidence was given by Willey, who said that he had refused the request of his. wife to pay half of what the dentist's charge would be. He told Wright that the debt had been contracted unknown to him. '

Mr. E. Page, S.M., said that the claim was for £26 ss, the balance admittedly owing. The claim had been brought against the husband on the grounds that the service had been rendered to his wife, that, it was a necessity, and that she had the right to pledge his credit for it. To decide what was a necessity the. manner of life of the husband had to _be looked •into. He was a man of substantial income, living in a large and expensively furnished house, with two cars. "I think the evidence shows that Ayilley was a liberal and generous husband," the Magistrate remarked, and he concluded a£tcr reviewing further evidence that a new set of teeth for Mrs. Willey was a necessity. One of .the.defences was that Mrs. Willey had adequate means, but the husband's own evidence was that it was his practice to pay' her dentist's bills, and Mr. Page thought that the money given to her was not intended to cover such a substantial expenditure as the present oue. The other, ground of defence that Mrs. Willey had pledged her credit alone was not upheld .by Mr. Page. Regarding the allegation that the charge was excessive, the defendant Willey had called no evidence, but for' the plaintiff two practitioners had agreed that it was a reasonable; charge. The plaintiff was -a. specialist using the best materials, and Mr. Page1: thought his charge a reasonable one. lie thought that the contents of the correspondence read in Court and of the deed of separation', gave strong support to the plaintiff's case. . , . ... Mr R. E.Pope appeared for the plaintiff Mr." E. M. Sladd'en for Willey, and Mr AY D. Goodwin for Mrs. AVilley.