“CURSE OF COUNTRY”

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 March 1937, Page 10

“CURSE OF COUNTRY”

SALE ON INSTALMENT PLAN. PALMERSTON N„ February 23. Strong opinions on the subject of door-to-door selling of expensive goods on the instalment plan were expressed by Mr. J. L. Stout. S.M.. to-day, when he nonsuited a firm in its claim against a husband for a debt incurred by his wife, from whom he was living apart. “These people have no right to go round taking orders for expensive garments from persons who cannot afford to pay. There is too much of this peddling and trying to get persons to to buy things they cannot afford. It is the curse of the country,” said Mr. Stout. “These people go from door to door selling to persons on sustenance and others who cannot afford to buy. I They are a perfect pest, and should not [be encouraged.” Plaintiff was the Standard Trading Company, Hamilton, as assignee of the Phoenix Trading Company, Ltd. William George Chambers is secretary of the plaintiff company, and was also the salesman who, on behalf of the Phoenix Trading Company, sold the goods concerned in the action. It was remarked by counsel for the defence that he seemed to be the whole of both concerns. Defendant was Axel Josva. Hansen, cabinetmaker, Palmerston North, from whom it was sought to recover £7 2/6, as balance due on a coat sold to Mrs. Hansen on the instalment plan in 1934. and on which only 15/- had been paid. Mr. Graham Crossley, who was instructed by Messrs. Tompkins and Wakefield, Hamilton, represented plaintiff, and Mi - . A. M. Ongley appeared for Hansen, whose wife and father-in-law gave evidence for the plaintiff.

Il was maintained by .Mr. Crossley that Mrs. Hansen acted as agent for her husband, who failed to provide her with sufficient money to pay for food and clothes; therefore be should pay for the coat.

Mrs. Mary Ann Hansen said her marriage with Hansen in 1933 was unhappy; it was difficult to get money from him for food and clothing. His parents and her parents gave her sec-ond-hand clothes. In March. 1934, when the salesman called she had only an old eoat which was not good enough for winter. She told Hansen she was getting the coat and paying for it herself; he said nothing. She was then receiving £1 weekly for housekeeping and food for herself and child.

There was nothing left after buying food, for clothing. He had paid other accounts contracted in his name such as groceries.

Her application in April, 1934, for a separation order on the ground of failure to maintain failed, Mrs. Hansen admitted to Mr. Angley. She did not buy the coat, but told him of the purchase before taking delivery. She did not ask him for the deposit. Mr. Ongley quoted to Mrs. Hansen part of Chambers's evidence to the effect that he had thought it extraor dinary that she did not pay the £1 deposit, but only 10/-, and had asked her the reason, to which she had replied that she could not get the money from her husband. This statement by Chambers was correct, but what else was she to do other than buy on the instalment plan? She had to have something to wear, said Mrs. Hansen.

Mr. Ongley: Your people were living on sustenance then and getting all sorts of things on the instalment plan? —“What has that got to do with this.” Mr. Ongley: Well, it shows that you were following their example.

WINTER COAT IN MARCH. Mrs. Hansen said she got the coat in March. .1934, and left her husband the following month.

Mr. Ongley asked why she wanted a winter coat in March. 1934. Mr. Crossley; One needs one in February this year. She resided with her husband again at his request, proceeded Mrs. Hansen. Later she left him again, and in May, 1936, commenced separation proceedings, but she had these adjourned sine die and had not gone on with them. She left, the two children of ilte marriage with her husband. Mr. Ongley; Is this a plan between this man Chambers, who seems to be the whole works of the two concerns, and you to make your husband pay for the coat?—“No, he has the right to pay for it.” Re-examined. Mrs. Hansen said she had not seen Chambers since the coat was sold to her. Site had paid only 15/- on it. Her husband would not let her buy clothes by instalment or| in any other way. George Blair, father of Mrs. Hansen, said that never at any time did Hansen provide satisfactorily for his (laughter. Judging by what she borrowed from home she never had any money. Her clothes were provided bv

his wife and his daughter’s mother-in-law; thye were mostly acquired at jtjmbles. Hansen could afford to run a car and go off in it to Taupo fishing with friends when first married, but his wife had to stay at home.

Mr. Crossley: Who has kept your daughter?—“l am the lucky one.”

Cross-examined, Hansen said he was on sustenance at the time his daughter bought tlie coat. Mr. Angley: You were acting most improvidently in buying things yourself by instalments? —-I had other means.”

And drew sustenance? Did you tell the officers of the department of your other means?—“My papers, sworn on oath, are in order. I have paid for everything I have bought on instalments.”

To Mr. Stout, Mr. Ongley said there were only three conditions under which a wife was permitted to pledge her husband’s credit. One was by the express authority of the husband. The second was if there was an implied authority in the course of trade. The third was if the purchases were of necessaries.

Mr. Stout questioned the right of Mrs. Hansen to get a coat costing seven guineas and a-half when she knew what her husband’s financial position was. She could have got one for half the monney which would have kept her warm. Even if Hansen were getting £5 a week, not £3 16/- as was stated, there was no justification for the purchase. He supposed she was encouraged in this sort of thing 1Z her parents who made similar purchases while her father was on sustenance. Perhaps she could not be blamed. He ordered a non-suit on the ground that there was no pledging of credit.