HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 47, Issue 14546, 8 December 1921, Page 5

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

WHO SHALL PAY? FOR FURNITURE SUPPLIED. At the Masterton Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr. S. L. I\ Free, S.M., Hoar and Permaiu proceeded against Hugh Stanley McLaren and liis wife to recover an amount alleged to be owing for furniture supplied.. The amount claimed was £45 15s 9d. Counsel for plaintiffs said that the goods were ordered, by Mrs. McLaren and were forwarded to Mr. and Mrs. McLaren’s home, at Hinekura. The articles were used in the household. Mr McLaren now maintained that the goods should, be paid for by Mrs. McLaren out of her separate estate.

Chafl'e? Burch, salesman in Hoar ami Permain’s, said he remembered Mrs. McLaren ordering the goods mentioned in the statement of claim. They were forwarded to ~ Iliuekura. The goods dated hack 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 h'e 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 goods 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 forwarded to Iliuekura. The account had not been paid, with the exception of £5, which came through a firm of solicitors. The goods 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. He did not remember McLaren saying that he was paying the account by special arrangement, and, that he would not pay any further accounts. The accounts had been repeatedly sent to Mrs McLaren, and it was probably after the Hugo and Shearer ease 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 disunite were made, as Mr Burch had made the sales. When the account was sent to McLaren h e called and repudiated liability, and said they could sue him. McLaren said that he had previously told witness that he would not be responsible for any further goods supplied to Mrs McLaren, and witness replied, “I thought you would pay for furniture for the household, as any reasonable man would. ’ ’ THE DEFENCE. Counsel for defendant produced the deed of separation between McLaren and his wife, under which defendant paid his wife £5 a week. About £.llOO had been paid under this agreement. 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. The wife was allowed £3 a week, and was to maintain herself. Witness paid about £7OO existing at the date of the separation. The creditors at that time were written to, stating that lie 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 lie would not be responsible for any future/lebts incurred by her. The first witness heard of the amount now in dispute was in 1920, after the Hugo and Shearer case. He went and saw Permain, who said he thought that witness would be responsible for house furnishings. Witness declined to pay the account. Witness was nei or in the shop when any of the goods in dispute w r ere purchased. Cross-examined, defendant said that although lie and his wife had lived together since the deed of separation was : {Mhkn up, the £5 a week had been continued to his wife right through. Witfres's had no idea where the furniture in dispute came from until he got a letter from a solicitor two years after the furniture had been put in. The furniture was his wife’s, and he had no use for it. She could take it away, or Hoar and Permain could have it hack again. The house was fully furnished, and the articles in dispute were not required. THE DECISION. 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 he for plaintiffs as against the separate estate of Mrs McLaren, and not against Hugh Stanley McLaren.