A HEAVY DRESSMAKER'S BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10127, 9 May 1896, Page 2 (Supplement)

A HEAVY DRESSMAKER'S BILL.

WHAT OUGHT A WIFE TO SPEND ON DRISSS. This was an action brought by a Court dressmaker for the amount of a bill for dresses and other goods supplied by her to the wife of the defendant. The defence was that, although the defendant and his wife were living together, the dresses were ordered by the wife aftor there had boon a revocation of the wife's authority to pledge her husband's credit, and, in the alternative, it was contended that those goods were not of such a class as were necessary to tho wife's position. Mr. R, M. Bray appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Astbury, Q.C., and Mr. English Harrison for the defendant. Miss Vivian Floyd, the plaintiff, in support of her counsel's opening statement, said that she carried on tho business of a Court dressmaker at G, Savile Row, and that her customers were chiefly, although not exclusively, members of tho higher classes of society. The defendant's wife was introduced to her as a customer in 1894, and before supplying her with goods she made inquiries in the usual way, and understood that the defendant's position was such that she might execute the orders on credit.

Cross-examined, witnoss said she believed that the defendant held an exceptionally good position as clerk in a city firm of foreign bankers, and that his wife w»s the daughter of a baronet. The goods supplied included a plum-coloured velvet gown for which sho had charged twenty guineas; thore were other dresses less expensive, and two silk blouses. The goods wero ordered in October and November, 1894, and the bill amounted to over £113.

Mr. Justice Grantham: You heard it stated that the defendant's income was about £1000 a year. If so, what do you think would be a fair amount for a husband with that income to allow his wife for her dressmaker's bill alone?

Witness said she should think £200 a year a very reasonable sum for dress allowance. Mr. Justice Grantham: But this is for dresses only, and the goods were delivered within a period of five weeks. Witness pointed out that, so far as she knew, tba lady had not purchased any dresses for a year previously. The goods supplied would, if Mrs. Hallmann were careful, last her some time, so that there was nothing in the amount to show that her estimate would be exceeded. She had no idea that prior to the time the goods were supplied Mr. Hallmann had placed an advertisement in the Sutton local paper to the effect that if the tradespeople of Sutton opened credits in hia name without his consent, he would not be responsible for the accounts so opened, and, further, that all goods ordered for delivery at his house would be paid for on delivery. Ra -examined: An advertisement in a local paper was not likely to come to the knowledge of London tradesmen, and, as a matter ot fact, in epito of her inquiries, she knew nothing about it when the goods were supplied. The defendant, Mr. Edward Hallmann, called, stated that ho was a clerk in the counting-house of Messrs. Frederick Huth and Co., South American merchants. His salary was £1000 a year, but ho had been obliged to raise monoy some four years ago, and he returned his net income at something under £SOO. His wife was the eldest daughter of Sir Digby Murray, a Scotch baronet, and had no money except what was allowed her by himself and small presents from her relations. From the time they were married his wife seemed to consider he was made of money, and they at first lived in a smi.ll house in Park-street. It was far beyond his means, and he was obliged to sub-let it during the season. In 1892 he gave up that house and took another less expensive at Sutton, Surrey, but his wife's extravagance compelled him to move into a yet smaller one. When they were first married thoy moved in what is known as "good society." His means were not sufficiently good to enable him to live in that circle, and they had quito dropped out of their former class of acquaintances. His wife was also in delicate health, and since they went to Sutton they seldom went into society at all. The effect of his advertisement in the local paper was to stop his wife's credit in Sutton, and fhe then, unknown to him, shopped in London. He had been called upon to pay, and had paid, several of tbeso accounts. When this bill came in he was astonished, and still more at the details of it. One of the items was for lace at 40s a yard and another for six buttons t\, 7s 6d each. He spoke to his wife about- it, and there was a scene. In the end, he refused to have anything to do with it, and placed the matter in the hands of his solicitors. Ho believed that Miss Floyd had already obtained judgment for the amount against bis wife. During the time they had boon married he had given his wife everything that she reasonably required in the way of dress. The plaintiff in her affidavit Baid that Mrs. Hallman had represented her husband to be a private banker in FleetStreet. That was nob so. His wifo took the plaintiffs part and considered ho was liable to discharge this account, and had filed an affidavit saying that these were the only dresses she had had that year. That was absolutely untrue. Other evidence having boen given, Mr. Astbury, for the defondant, submitted that the husband's liability was altered by the Married Woman's Property Act, 1893, and that tho plaintiff must look for payment to Mrs. Hallmann, who was now placed in the position of a feme sole by the Act so far as debts contracted without the husband's authority were concerned. The principle of " necessaries" did not ariso in this case at all, as the husband and wife I were living together. A wife had power to order "necessaries" where, from the desertion or other fault of tho husband, those necessaries had not been provided by the husband. That was not shown by the evidence to be the case here. He submitted also that the principle of agency, which he understood was nob pleaded, was amply rebutted by the evidence before the jury. For tho plaintiff it had been contended that Mr. Hallmann became in some way a consenting party, because he never took steps for the return of the goods, which ib was said, and ho thought very probably correctly said, were in Mrs. Hallmanns' possession. Mr. Hallmann in his evidence when cross-examined on this point stated ho had seen two of the blouses and had been told the rest of the articles wore in a locked cupboard. Ho had had nothing to do with the ordering of the things, and he declined in any way to interfere with them. If West End tradespeople chose to supply things to married ladies on credit behind their husband's backs they must nob find fault if the husbands refused to pay for them. Mr. Bray, for the plaintiff, contended that the dresses were "necessaries," having regard to the social position of the defendants, for which the wife bad authority to pledge nor husband's credit. He relied on the fact) that the tilings were still in the possession of the wife. The jury found that, although a portion of the articles supplied, amounting to £00 in value, were suitable for a lady in Mrs. Kallmann's position of life, yet that hor husband had prohibited her from ordering goods on credit, and, therefore, that he was nob liable to pay the plaintiffs bill. Judgment for the defendant, with coits accordingly, ,