IMPORTANT TO TRADERS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 962, 20 May 1879, Page 2

IMPORTANT TO TRADERS.

Dune din, May 19. A decision important to traders was given by Mr. Bathgate, R.M., to-day, in the case of Haynes v. Purnell. Mr, Bathgate said—" The plaintiff sues to recover LIS 4s for goods supplied to defendant's wife from January to October, 187 S. The accounts were rendered quarterly to Mrs. Purnell. The defendant never authorised his wife to purchase the goods, and did not know anything about the account till January, 1879. He made a regular dress allowance for the express purpose of relieving her from the necessity of obtaining drapery goods on credit. He therefore contends that he is not liable. In the present case, I am satisfied the account was incurred by Mrs. Purnell without her husband's authority, and against his will, he having supplied her with a sufficient allowance. There was therefore revocation of any authority she might have had to purchase drapery goods on credit as his . agent. I am of opinion that under the [ circumstances the plaintiff cannot re- [ cover. This may be deemed a hardship, but the plaintiff always had it in his power to inform the defendant of the currency of the account by rendering the account to him, instead of to Mrs. Purnell. It is sound policy that law should place some limit on the facilities afforded in the way of credit, whereby a man might be ruined without his knowledge by a thoughtless or extravagant wife. This decision does not impeach the principle that a husband is liable for necessaries. The fact of the defendant having allowed his wife a sufficient sum for the wants of herself and family protects him from the liability. The plaintiff will be nonsuited."