TE AWAMUTU R.M. COURT. Thursday.—(Before H. W. Northeroft, Esq., RM.)

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1383, 14 May 1881, Page 3

TE AWAMUTU R.M. COURT. Thursday. — (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., RM.)

Cruelty to Horses, Jkssb Sags of Alexandra, farmer, pleaded guilty to a charge of cruelly using two horses. From the evidence of Constable Gillies, it appeared that on the Bth April last, the defendant's son a lad of about IS years old, was driving two horses in a dray in Te Awamutu. Both animals were shoulder-galled. The grey one very much so. The skin and hair being both off, and matter oozing theiefiom. The horbea were otherwise in fair condition. The accused stated that he had great difficulty in keeping the grey horse from getting galled, as it was thinalunued* Sage said he had been -10 yeai s in the colony, and had never been charged with cruelty to animals before. The R.M. remarked that the Cruelty to Animals Act had not loug been in operation in the co'ony. Cautioned, and ordered to pay 17s costs. [Mr Paisous, J.P., hero took a seat on the Bench.]

Wilful Damage. George Rogers and Charles Rogcra, brothers, aged about 11 and 13, were charged with wilful damage to a irate and chain at Paterangi, value 2* Gd The occus>ed pleaded " not guilty." The charge was abundantly proved by the evidonce of Mrs. Ellen I'robc, teacher of the Paterang i school, her husband and Kou.as.tNo by the evidence of the accused George Rogers. The Court ordered them to pay 2s 5d the damago, and £2 15^ Gd costs, or in default two months' impribonment in Mount Eden gaol

Civil cases. Joseph Moocsj, (of Hamilton) v. Jobcph Carlcy. This case was originally hi ought in the Hamilton Court, Mr O'Neill appearing for the plaintiff and Mr Gresham for the defendant. On that occasion the contention by the defendant's solicitor that the case ought not to have been brought in Hamilton, was allowed, — the cause of action, (if any), haung arisen at Te Awamutu, whciethe defendant resided, and where the plaintiff had X bhop. — The case was decided to be tried at Te Awamutu, and the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs £o ISs Od. At the last Court day here, 14th April, the action again came on for hearing, Mr O'Neill again representing the plaintiff and Mr Gresham the defendant. The claim iub for £6 9s 7d, and was for drapenes Mipphed to defendant's wife- The defendant did not deny that the goods were supplied, but averred that he had cautioned the tradesmen not to supply goods to any person on credit without his (defendant's) written authoiity, and in addition to this the defendant had foi bidden his wife to pledge his credit. The arguments of the learned oounsel on either &ide occupied nr-aily the whole of the day, and His Woiship reser\ed judgment to consider the cases lefened to. His Woislup gave judgment as follows: — The plaintiil sues to ieco\er £6 !)s 7d for diapei'y goods, sworn to ha\e been bold and delneied to defendant's \\ ife Defendant makes no attempt to deny the sale or dclneiy to 1 i-> ■wife, but contends he is not liable, on the following giounds : —He had foibidden his wife to pledge his credit before the debt was contracted ; had prohibited plaintiffs mauager, who sold the goods, giving anyone credit in bis name without his written authoiity prior to the contraction of the debt ; had never anthoiised his wife to get these goods, and did not know plaintiff had supplied her with them. The plaintiff's manager, who sold the goods, admits that defendant piolnbited his giwng credit without his (defendant's) written authority, and continues :— " I did not know defendant's position then, and thought he might be an employer of labor and wished to guaid against his sen ants; I did not think he meant his wife. I knew defendant's position before the 12th of June, and thought it might apply to hi& wife till he received the paicel that contained the child s hood."' He allows he thought defendant might mean lua w ife became aw.ire he was not an employer of l<iboui,nnd yet did not trouble himsolfto inquiie who or what defendant did moan by his prohibition but .supplied his wife oil credit, the cau^e of this action. The defendant calls other tiadesmen living 1 here, who weie pi ohibitcd giving credit in his name in the same waj an plaintiff's manager, and they undei stood the prohibition to include defendant's wife and family, in puint of fact evoiy one. The defendant's wife admit c her husband had foibidden herpledging his credit, and that she got these goods after he had done so and that he knew thej' came into the hoiibe ; that may bo so, but it is not hhowu he knew they were got on credit, nor do I think from the evidence he did, ivb he supplied her with money to procure all necessaries, as far as his mean*- would allow, and I do not think there was any collusion between defendant and his wife. Therefore it is purely a matter of law whether thejf act of hhsband and wife living together raises a presumption that she has authority to pledge his credit, although he imiv hive withdrawn any authority she had. That question, I think is answered in the case Debenham v. Mellon, Law Times, 43, A..5., Page 673, Lord Blackburn in this case says.— "The present question is this. Had the wife a mandate to order the clothes which it would be proper for her in htr station in life to have, though the husband had forbidden lipr to pledge his credit, and had given her money to buy clothes? I think, for the reasons given by the majority of the Court in Jolly v. llees, and also by the judges in the Court of Appeal in this case, that there is no authority and no principle for saying that the wife had authority to pledge her husband's credit. I quite agree that if the husband knew that the wife had got credit, if he had allowed the tradesmen to suppose that he himself had sanctioned the transactions by paying them, or in other ways, it might very well be argued that he would have given such evidence of authority that, if he did revoke it, he would be bound to prire notice of revocation to the tradesmen and to all who had acted upon the faith of his authority and sanction. Now there may be many cases in which the husband has so aanctioned his wife's pledging his credit, but there is not any such case here. The question i?, whether the plaintiff, who liad never, dealt with the wife or husband before, was entitled to assume that there was any such authority implied in the mere fact that the wife was living with her husband, and I think the law is not so. " "The question of what contracts of a wife, living with her husband, will bind him, may be stated as follows : s-f All her contracts entered into with his 'expressed or implied authority will

i find him, and his authdrity will be implied for necessaries, but only necessaries ; and this implied authority is liable to be rebutted by showing that she is already fully supplied with necessaries, or that the husband has forbidden her to pledge his credit, or they have so agreed ' between them, even although unknown to the tradesman. There is no necessary presumption that a wife living with her husband has authority to pledge his credit ; and a husband who is able and willing to supply his wife with necessaries, and has forbidden her to pledge Ins credit, cannot be held liable for necessaries bought by her; so that a tradesman, who, without notice of the husband's prohibition, has supplied goods to the wife, cannot maintain an action against him for the price. The counsel for the plaintiff relied a good deal on the case Wilson v. Clsrk, hear 4 before Mr Barstow about a month ago, it being "colonial law," but I fail to see that that case bears in any way whatever on this. The defendant then, as reported, does not appear to have denied his wife's authority to biud him, she being, in all probability clothed with a general authority, he having allowed tradesmen to believe he had countenanced her transactions by paying her debts, or in other vays ; but in this case it was not so. In a case heard before Mr Bathgate, in Dunedm, in May, #1879, (Haynes v. Purcell). the plaintiff sned to recover for drapery goods sold to defendant's wife. Defendant contended he was not liable on the grounds that he had made his wife an allowance for the express purpose of relievingjher from the necessity of obtaining goods on credit. Mr Bathgate held by so doing he had revoked any authority &he might have had to purchase goods on ciedit <is his agent, and non-suited the plaintiff. This may be deemed a hardship to tradespeople that they are precluded from supplying a lady without previous inquiry into her autlionty, but it is sound policy that the law should place some limit on the facilities afforded in the way of credit, whereby a man might be ruined without his knowlege, by a thoughtless or extravagant wife. lam of opinion the plaintiff cannot lccover. Judgment for defendant with costs, £5 18b. J. S. JBuckland v. Patterson. — Mr Greshnm for Plaintiff. The defendant did not appear. Claim £10 18s 9d for a horse sold. It appeared that the defendant had paid part of the debt but no cobts. Mr Gresham stated that the balance now due was only three shillings) and four pence, and that he lrid therefore not deemed it necessary to put the defpndant to the additional expense which the attendance of the Jfl.iintiff would h.ive occasioned. Judgment for Plaintiff, 3s 4d COhtS. Giesham v. Allan — Claim for an I. O.U. the conbider.ition being 1 12 weeks rent of cottage. Judgment for plaintiff JG2 8s Costs, £1 8-j. This concluded the business.