HUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10536, 18 August 1910, Page 4

HUSBAND'S LIABILITY.

A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL. (Per Pbess Association.) Wellington, August 17. The appeal of Robert Williams, ironmonger, of Napier, against the decision of Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M., calling upon him to pay an account of £52 13s 6d for Kirkcaldie and Stains (Ltd.), Wellington, for goods purchased by his wife was decided by the Chief Justice. It was pointed out that a difference had arisen between Mr and Mrs Williams, and the latter caiiie to Wellington to reside. Her husband provided her with £4 per week, and paid her house rent as well. Mrs Williams obtained goods on credit from Kirkcaldie and Stains, and left New Zealand with another man, leaving behind her a debt of £7O 10s 6d. The firm abandoned the claim for articles of male attire charged for in this account. The Chief Justice decided that Mr Williams had previously limited his liability to £2O. The magistrate assumed, said his Honor, that every married woman residing with her husband and having the general management of his house was presumed to be his agent in all matters connected with the domestic economy of the house and family. She was,' therefore, he assumed, clothed with implied authority from her husband to give orders for the wearing apparel, provisions, etc., necessary for the decent maintenance of herself and family according»to the station in life of her husband. In his donor's'opinion this was stating the law too broadly, and it,was in direct conflict with what was laid down in a case cited at the hearing. The mere fact of the 'marital relation subsisting was not sufficient. This is not a case of a woman being left destitute. The firm had: chosen to -trust Mrs Williams for a large sum'of money for drapery. In ' about', two : mohths's • time' she got £7O worth of drapery,/and some of it was not for her own use, but'for the person with whom she eloped. She had got drapery also 1 -in previous months whicli she herself had paid for. - It was plain that the amount site got in drapery was an unusual amount, for a person : in her circumstances of life. If the evidence 'of Williams was to' be lieved lie" must succeed, because he stated -that she had an allowance given to her, and was to pay her own accounts: His Honor decided that judgment ought 'to""hav'e' been given only for-,the £2O paid into court. The costs of-'the appeal wouldiTJe six guineas, arid.the costs;hr the court below would be fixed by'the w6gis|rate. i •t, '■''■■' -'-■■;■ "''■ ■ ■"- --' - '