Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY.

AN JNTBRESTINU LCSIOY. Al the Ma. Lerton Magistrate’.. Court yesterday, before Mr S. L. P, Free, S.M., Hoar .and Permain proceeded against Hugh Stanley McLaren and li s wife to recover £45 1 15s 9d alleged to bp owing for furniture supplied. Mr W. Noble, for nitifh--, said that the goods were ordered by Mrs McLaren and were forwarded to Mr and Mrs McLaren’s home, at Hinakura. The articles were used in the household. Mr McLaren now mantained that the goods should be paid for by Mrs McLaren out of her separate estate. Charles Burch, salesman in Hoar and Permain’s, said Mrs McLaren ordered the goods mentioned, which were forwarded to Hinakura. The goods dated back to January, 1918. On some occasions Mr and Mrs McLaren had come to the shop together when articles were purchased. Sometimes orders were given by telephone. Under cross-examination, witness said he did not know that ’his firm had been instructed not to deliver goods to Mrs McLaren. Witness did not know she ordered goods for herself, nor that she was in receipt of a separate income. The gooes were , booked up to Mrs McLaren. Thomas Permain said that on a former occasion Mrs McLaren had ordered goods and Mr McLaren had paid for them. The goods mentioned in the statement of claim were charged to Mrs McLaren and were sent to her. Cross-examined, witness admitted that when McLaren paid the first account he had said that Mrs McLaren had separate means of her own. tie did not remember McLaren saying that he was paying the account by special arrangement, and that ho would not pay any furthdi accounts. The accounts had been Repeatedly sent to Mrs -McLaren, and- it was probably after the Hugo and Shearer case against McLaren that the first claim was made upon the husband. Witness could not say whether Mr McLaren accompanied his wife to the shop when the purchases in dispute were made, as Mr Burch had made the sales. When the account was sent to McLaren he called and repudiated liability, and said they could sue him. McLaren said he had previously told witness he would not be responsible for any further goods supplied to Mrs McLaren, and witness replied, “I though you would pay for furniture for the household, as any reasonable man would.” Mr H. E. Hart, for defendant, produced the deed of separation' between McLaren and his wife, under which defendant paid his wife £5 a week. The wife had confessed her liability for the account, and the question now was whether the husband was liable.

Hugh Stanley McLaren, sheep-farm-er, of Hinakura, said there was a deed of separation entered into in 1917 between himself and wife, who was allowed £5 a week, and was to maintain herself. The creditors at that time were written to, stating that he would not be liable for further debts. Hoar and Permain were not among these creditors. In January, 1918, witness called at Hoar and Permain’s and paid an account, as he thought it only fair to the firm. He told Permain that his wife was in receipt of a separate allowance, and that he would not be responsible for any future debts incurred by her. The first witness heara of the amount now in dispute was in 1920, after the Hugo and Sheearer case. He went and saw Permain, who said he thought witness would be responsible for house furnishings. Witness declined to pay the account. Witness was never in the shop when any of the goods in dispute were purchased. The Magistrate said he thought the case was very clear. A wife, who already had a fully furnished house, had no right to buy furniture and charge it to her husband without his authority. The furniture could not be classed as necessaries for the household. Mr McLaren had said that he expressly warned Hoar and Permain not to give his wife credit. The mere fact that the furniture was taken to McLaren’s house did not place any liability upon him. If a tradesman chose to give credit after being warned, then he did so at his own risk. Judgment would be for plaintiffs as against the separate estate of Mrs McLaren, and not against Hugh Stanley McLaren.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19211209.2.9

Bibliographic details

Wairarapa Age, 9 December 1921, Page 3

Word Count
714

A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY. Wairarapa Age, 9 December 1921, Page 3

A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY. Wairarapa Age, 9 December 1921, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert