LIABILITY FOR DEBTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20288, 22 June 1929, Page 16

LIABILITY FOR DEBTS.

WOMAN AS SHOPKEEPER,

HUSBAND'S APPEAL'UPHELD.

NO PART IN THE BUSINESS,,. A husband's liability for goods ordered for his wife's confectionery business was the point at issue in a Supreme Court appeal settled by . Mr. Justice Kennedy yesterday. The appellant was William J. T. Hicks, of Te Puke (Mr. Dromgool), and the respondents^Browne Brothers and Geddes, Ltd. (Mr. Hubble). The appeal was one on point of law and on matter of fact from, a judgment given by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in favour of Browne Brothers and Geddes. The magistrate held that the appellant was liable for goods delivered to his wife for the purposes of a business carried on by her. The magistrate did not believe that Hicks did not know that the accounts were in his name. Mrs. Hicks kept her own bank account and paid for all the goods supplied for her business by her own cheques., Her husband was a labourer and took no part in the business. The real question involved in the appeal was this: Was credit in fact given by respondent to the husband for goods supplied, to. the wife, and did the husband know that the respondent was so supplying the wife relying on his credit ? His Honor held that the respondent had failed to prove that the appellant knew the goods sued for were supplied to the appellant's wife in reliance upon the husband's' credit. The appeal was allowed with costs to the appellant, £l2 12s, and disbursements. Judgment would be entered in the Magistrate's Court for the defendant with proper costs.