A DELICATE QUESTION.

West Coast Times, Issue 586, 10 August 1867, Page 4

A DELICATE QUESTION.

(from the daily teie&haph may 15.)

A curious case, decided in the Common Pleas on Saturday, raised) points of moment to every class in society. The questions involved were, to what extent ladies might purchase dresses ; and how far husbands were liable for bills run up by their wives. It will be seen that the case touches almost every human interest. Compared with it, Luxemburg dwindles down to what Johnson calls " a pretty fortress and a foreign strand ;" while personal payment of rates is a -mere bagatelle in actual amount contrasted with " the bill " which the unfortunate husband is able neither to reject nor amend. The facts are simple enough. Mrs Baker bought dresses at Shoolbred's and the husband denies that he is bound to pay, because he had made his wife a handsome allowance, and had expressly prohibited her from pledging his credit. MiBaker said thatheearnedfrom his business L2OO a year,and allowed hiVwife LIOO a year for dress. Unless we adopt the old dictum of Sir Thomas Browne and say, " We believe it to be impossible." •we should be inclined to doubt whether the report of Mr Baker's evidence is correct. He cannot surely mean that he allowed his wife half of his whole income for her v r earing apparel' ; there must be some mental and financial reservation respecting other sources of supply. But beyond this the question arises, is a husband liable for a wife's debts when he has expressly forbidden her to incur any ? Hitherto it has been understood that, unless a husband publicly notified his refusal to be responsible, his liability' must continue ; but Mr Justice Willes, in trying the ease, stated the law in what seems to us another way. He said : " A husband has a right to say to his wife, 'you shall not pledge my credit;' aud if he does say so, then a tradesman- who trusts her without sufficient authority cannot recover. But the restriction must be distinct, and the prohibition positive." This seems to us a new reading of the law ; and what is of much greater importance, it is so very loosely, worded that it will bear several interpretations. What does the judge mean by a " distinct " restriction ? what by a " positive '' prohibition ? We all know that the intimacy of married life admits of a hundred different methods and occasion's of communication and cemmaud. Is a solemn warning delivered during a curtain lecture to hold good? or should the non-legality that in some respects attaches to the hours after suuset apply also to the present case? Who is to testify that the restriction was " distinct.? " Who is to suy that the prohibition was " positive ?" Are we to require other witnesses besides the wife ? Or, if we admit the statement of the husband and the admission of the wife as conclusive, what is to prevent a happy and united pair of " confederates" — like the Lammles in Dickens's last story — from swearing "as one man" that a prohibition has been duly given? Whatever Mr Justice Willes may have meant to insinuate, the jury did not take the hint. Notwithstanding Mr Baker's alleged magnificent allowance, equal to_ that of the young lover on the stage, who generally gives away " half his income" in the last act — notwithstanding the stern commands received j by the disobedient Eve — the jury find for the Messrs Shoolbred, and the bill, nearly thirty pounds, will have to be paid.

We do not care to argue whether, in this particular instance, justice has been done ; but the verdict and the doubts expressed by the judge leave the law in an uncertain and unsatisfactory state. It may not be easy to declare what would be the best law on the subject ; but, at all events, there ought to be no mistake about it. We should all of us know our duties, our responsibilities, and our rights ; we want a legal St. Paul to lecture " such of \$ as are husbands," and to give tradesmen some knowledge how far they may trust the wives who haunt " the happy hunting grounds" of Regent street and Oxford street, and who run down silks and satins, and run up bills, with an " unerring instinct" .that even Mr Disraeli's supporters cannot excel. There are — there generally are in these cases — three courses open to us. In the first place, we may make a husband liable for all his wife's debts, unless the treadesman be individually told not to trust her ; oi» we may say that a public advertisement shall be a sufficient warning. That has hitherto been regarded as good law. Secondly, the liability may be extended only to necessaries. And thirdly, we may declare that a husband shall not be liable unless he has himself authorised particular tradesmen to give credit to his wife. This last would reverse the present spirit of the law. It is now presume J that a wife living with her husband is authorised to pledge his credit ; it would then be presumed that, as a general rule, she had no such authority, and special authorisation- in the case of each tradesman would be required. To poor men the importance of such a change would be very great. Many a person of limited income has been often sorely distressed through the extravagance of his wife ; but while he retains any feeling of tenderness for her he does not wish to make her the subiect of a public advertisement, or to attract the attention of malicious gossip to the discord in h'shorne. If, however, he could stop her reckless career by simply going to the tradesmen whom he had already authorised to supply her with goods, and saying to them, "I withdrawmyrequestthat you shouldgive my wife credit," he would have a simple remedy at hand. The worst inconvenience of such a law would be that a millionaire husband would have to sign separate authorisations to his wife for the score of shops she frequents weekly if indeed the very complaisant tradesmen of London, who trust " all in all," •would require any such document. As it ia, they are only too anxious to confide in anybody who even looks respec-

table. Some time ago a fashionable swindler, entirely unknown, obtained several hundred pounds worth of jewels from our chief West-end shops, simply because he drove about in a brougham, and gave large orders in an easy, impudent style. We must, of course, recognise the difficulty that may arise when a husband does not confine himself to checking his wife's extravagance, but wishesto deprive her of the right to make a perfectly, reasonable .outlay. A woman who gives herself in marriage does so for many considerations, amongst which is the legal right she obtains of fairly sharing her husband's fortunes. Too much power must not be placed in the hands of churlish men, nor must the wife be reduced, to the position of a dependent. We object to Judge Willes's dictum because it is indefinite and vague, and it would be impossible to ascertain whether or not a prohibition had been given. It is equally difficult for a tradesman to ascertain whether or not the wife is merely spending sums consistent with her means. For instance, the dresses ordered by Mrs Baker from Messrs Shoolbred may have been most inexpensive, but then how could the tradesmen tell whether or not the lady had ordered other dresses at another shop the day before? The same difficulty will occur in giving a woman a legal right to buy necessaries." There is the question of quantity as well as of quality. A silk dress, for instance, may be a necessary, yet if a woman bought six in a week from six different tradesmen she would be wildly extravagant, and in such a case are the five last tradesmen to be- the -victims, and the first to be paid? Probably the demands of equity would best be met by giving a wife no right to pledge her husband's credit unless he had given her direct authority, never expressly revoked, to obtain goods from tradesmen specially named. In some instances men would give their wives a definite , allowance, and no authority ; in others • authority, and no allowance ; but a husband, honestly desirous of securing domestic economy, could compass it without harshness or publicity, and the tradesmen would not be led into a snare.

Good Advice. — Reader, did you ever enjoy the ecstatic bliss of courting ? If you did nt then get a little gall-an-try, Feeendly Advice-. — A young fellow once offered to kiss a Quakress. "Friend," said she, " thee must nofc do it." " Oh, by Jove ! but I must," said the youth. " Well, friend, 'as thee hasfc sworn, thee may do it ; but thee must nofc make a practice of it." Pat's Dheait. — An Irishman was amusing some country friends with the various exploits of his life, but finding that his host did not notice the empty glass before him, he reminded him of it hi the following humorous manner : — ■ X Faith, its meself had a quare dhrame now. I dhreamt I was in Rome, and that I called upon his Riverence the Pope. I Jiad hardly ■ knocked afc the door, when his Holiness himself opened it. ' Ah, Pat, 1 says he, ,is it you that are come to see me ?' ' Faith, your Honor, and its nobody else.' ' Come up stairs *vid me,' he cried. And sure there was the handsomest room as ever you clapped eyes on. 'Be sated, now,' said his riverence ; ' and what will you be taking ?' I was bothered for a moment, but I just said, ' A dhrop o' the crathur ;' when he turns to me and soys, ' Shall ifc be hot or cowld ?' ' Hot,' says I ; and away went his Holiness to fetch the hot , water, and before he came back I awoke. Arrah ; what a fool I was I didn't havo itcowldor nate !" The Will of the Late Sic Stuaet A # Donaldson. — The will of Sir Stuart Alexander Donaldson, lato Consul-General of Sardinia, formerly a member of' the Council and Assembly of New South Wales, and lately residing afc Prince's Gardens, Kensington, was proved in London on March Ist. The personalty in this country was sworn under L 40.000. The testator was for many years the head of the mercantile firm of Donaldson and Co., Sydney, and '.died afc Carlton Hall, Cumberland, the seat of his father-in-law, January 11th, afc the age of fifty-four. His will bears date October Bth, 1861, and two codicils in 1866. The executors and trustees are George H. Donaldson, his brother ; Samuel B,awlinßj his brother-in-law ; Fraderick Cowper, his" father-in-law ; Lady Donaldson, his relict; William Shilbeck, solicitor, his brother-in-law ; together, with. W. P. Faithful, of New South Wales ; and. John B- Watt and Charles Parbury. both of Sydney. To each cf the executors acting "in "the trusts he leaves a legacy of LIOO j to liis mother he leaves L 10 0; to his wife tie leaves all the furniture and effects nofc otherwise disposed of. with the carriages, horses, &c, and a legacy of LSOO immediate, and an annuity of LI2OO. His seveial pieces of presentation plate and other gifts he leaves to his wife for her life, and after her decease he leaves them to his eldest son, to be held as heir-looms. His estates in the colonies of New South Wales and New Zealand, and in England and elsewhere, are to be held in trust to pay thereout the said annuity, and to divide the residue equally between all his "children on then' attaining the age of twenty-five years. — " Home News," April 26.