A DRAPERY BILL

Evening Star, Issue 18052, 21 August 1922, Page 5

A DRAPERY BILL

£139 WITHIN SIX MONTHS. HUSBAND DEFENDS SUCCESSFULLY. Tho liability of a husband for his wife’s bills was the main issue in a claim for £159 17s 6d, which was brought in the Auckland Supreme Court last week before Mr Justice Herdman and a jury of (our, bv Smith and Caughloy, Ltd. (Mr Inder, Instructed by Messrs Thome and Thorne), against Esmond Napier (Mr Luxford), law clerk, of Dovonpwt. Iho claim -was for goods supplied to the wife of the defendant, allegedly as agent of the defendant and as having authority to pledge his credit. The detailed statement of claim gave particulars of goods, chiefly 6 ra.pory alleged to havo been supplied botween September, 1921, and the beginning of March, 1922. In the account of the goods supplied attached to tho statement of claim, says the Auckland ‘ Herald,’ were items tor font- frocks and costumes purchased between January 12 and March 1, ranging in price between £l3 2s od and £l6° 16s, and two pairs of shoes, purchased on December 10, 1921, and January 28, 1922, sold at £4 18s 6d and £4 4s respectively. Mr Inder stated that the point at issue was whether the defendant was liable lot tho goods purchased, and this must ho decided by proving, as counsel said womd bo done, that the wife of the defcnda.it bad express authority to pledge her husband’s credit, and that the goods purchased were necessary in all tho circumstances of the case. In arriving at a decision on the latter point the jury had to take into account tho station in life of husband and wife, and the circle in which they moved. In the ordinary course the wife had the right to_ pledge her _ husband’s credit in purchasing tho "ordinary necessaries of life,” this phrase hawing a very wide interpretation according to iho position and standing of tho parties.

CUSTOM IN OPENING ACCOUNT? Samuel Little Barry, chief dork of the plaintiff company, said an account had been opened with'Mrs Napier, for which tho latter stated her husband was to be responsible. To Mr Luxford : It was customary _ in the drapory trade to do business with women, but tho husband might be approached when it was feared the account would not be paid. Accounts were rendered to wives because firms might not sell so much if the bills went to tho husbands. Most of the business was done with wives, and the firm seldom nad to do with husbands. In giving credit it was usual to obtain all information about tho parties, and that was why Mrs Napier’s maiden name was tho subject of a memorandum. Witness did not think there was anything extravagant in the account —shoes at £4 18s 6d were often sold. Ho did not think there was anything wrong when the accounts had to be sent care of her father.

Rosie Napier, wife of the defendant, said sho was a daughter of W. J. Ralph. She had always received an allowance of £2 a week from her husband, and, prior to tile present occasion, her dress accounts had always been paid by her husband. Witness gave details of the mode of life of herself and husband, tending to show that it was an expensive household, including a maid at 30s a week and a motor car, and providing for many and varied entertainments, such as dinners and parties of various descriptions. Her husband always seemed to have plenty of money. She did, not know what income her husband had apart from his salary of £5 a week.

ALLOWANCE FOR “PIN MONE’fr.” To Mr Luxford : It was only “for a change” that witness had moved her account from two other welhknown drapery firms to the plaintiff company. It was nows to her that her credit had been stopped at the other two places. She and her husband had not lived together as man and wife since June 3 of last year, but had lived in the same house until two months ago. To His Honor : They had been married seven years, and while in Auckland had resided at her father-in-law’s house at Devonport. The allowance of £2 a week was not for clothes; it was just pin money to spend. She had been in the habit of running up bills, and her husband had always paid them. As a rule she got permission to open accounts, but not on this occasion.

At this stage Mr Luxford moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that the credit was given exclusively to the wife and not to the husband, and that the onus of proof, which was on the plaintiff, to show that the goods were. necessaries, had not been discharged.

His Honor said the latter question was for the jury, and depended on the station in life of the parties. If the jury found the goods were not necessary it should dismiss the case. That was the important point, although the jury was entitled to consider that the wife received, on her own statements, an allowance of £2 a week

The nonsuit points were reserved. “FORBADE WIFE TO PLEDGE CREDIT.”

Mr Luxford said that the defendant was a law clerk, receiving a salary of £6 a week, and struggling_ to pass his law examinations. His relations with his wife had latterly not been very happy, and he had directly forbade her to pledge his credit. On Juno 5, 1921, he gave her an allowance of £5 a week, which was reduced last January to £2. This was not the only account on his wife’s behalf for which the defendant was being pressed, and lie was forced in his own interests to repudiate liability. Mr Luxford submitted that the items in plaintiff’s account, taken together, could not be considered necessaries for the wife of a man receiving a salary of £6 a week.

William James Culpan, credit manager of John Court, Ltd., stated that Mrs Napier’s credit with his firm had been stopped by the defendant on August 22, 1921. Ho had not known Mrs Napier’s account to go to £2OO in two months.

The defendant denied that ho had entertained on the lavish scale indicated by his wife. He had not endeavored to maintain Ids father’s standard of life while Mr Napier, sen., was away. His evidence was generally on the lines of Mr Luxford’s opening.

In summing up, His Honor instructed the jury that when a husband and wife were living together there was a presumption that the wife was at liberty to pledge the credit of her husband for “necessaines,” a word which should bo interpreted according to the station in life of the parties. But in this case it was stated that authority to pledge the husband’s credit had been expressly withdrawn, and that tho defendant had made an allowance to tho wife quite sufficient in all the circumstances. If the jury uphold either of these latter contentions, or decided that the account of £139 was not for “necessaries,” then tho claim should bo dismissed.

Tho jury found for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly, with costs according to scale, witnesses’ expenses, and disbursements.

A wireless enthusiast of London has invented a radiophone of such Lilliputian dimensions that it can be housed in an ordinary match box. It consists of two coils, a' crystal, and a wave length controlling lever. Tho aerial is an external fixture. This miniature apparatus is capable of receiving messages on a 1,000 metre wave length. Grimsby (England) fishermen, hauling their gear a few weeks ago, were astonished to see tho net burst into flames upon emerging from the water. To prevent the boat catching fire they had to abandon their catch. vTho fire was due to tho netting of a quantity of phosphorus used for smoko screens to mask movements of naval craft during tho war. Harmless while immersed, tho phosphorus ignites upon contact with air.