The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-04-29 00:00:00

A WIFE'S POWER to CONTRACT DEBTS.

In the Bill Court, In London, the came nf '' Watkins V.
ficatt," has been heard, and was no action to recover
£156 120. 101. for furniture supplied to and work done for the
defendants wile.

The plaintiff is an upholsterer, and the defendant,
Mr. Addyes Smtt, is a gentleman having landed pro-
perty at ltatlinghope, near Shrewsbury, and was also
stated to be a magistrate for the county of
Worcester. It appeared that in 1865 there was a
deed of separation executed between the defendant and
his wife, and in 1867 a poet nuptial settlement was
made by which the defendant covenanted to pay to
trustees, for the benefit of his wife, an allowance
of £.lOO tier annum. The defendant estimated his net
income at £BOO per annum, and the gross at £1,300.
Alter that the defendant and his wife lived togsther
again, and in 1870 they resided in the R -gent's Park-
road, London. At Miehaelmas, 1470, the husband de-
termined the tenancy of that house, and removed the
furniture to the Bedford Pantechnicon, aid they then
went down to Ratlinghope in the autumn. The defend-
ant then intimated to his wife that they must separiste
again, and that she must look out and provide for her.
self and son out of the £4OO per annum secured to her.
The wife then went to London, and took a home in
Adelaide -road, Regent's-park. The defendant gave an
order to her trusteeß to remove the furniture from the
Pantechnicon to the wife's house. She then ordered
the things and work of the plaintiff now sued for, and
it woo proved that they were not of an extravagant
character, but suitable only for the house taken by her.
The defendant, having disc wered that his wife had
contracted debts which he was expected to pay, ad-
vertised in newspapers that his wife was not his agent
for contracting any debts, and that he would not be
liable for them. The defendant had been sued for
debts csntracted by Messrs. Barton and Co. the ircn-
mongers, Messrs. Shoolbred, the linendrapers, and
°thesis, and under advice had paid them.
On the part ot the defendant it was proved that the
£4OO per annum had been paid, and that his income
was only 1.:80d net.
In cross-examination it was elicited that his mother
had twice given him 1:500 to meet his expenses, but
those sums were mere gifts.
It WAS proposed to ask the defendant whether his
mother's income was not £lO,OOO or £3,000 a year.

His Lordehip overruled it, saying " My Aunt's "
ease has never been considered law in Westminster-
hall. ( Laughter.) Hie Lordship said the only question
for the jury was whether the allowance of 1.:4',0 a year
was a r asonable rum for the wife living apart from
her husband. The general question depended on the
authority given by a husband to hia wife. When husband
and wife were living together, and the husband left the
wife to manage the household affairs, he impliedly gave
authority to her to provide whit: was reasonably
necessary for that purpose. But when they were
living apart it was incumbent on tradesmen and others
who gave credit to the wife to ascertain what authority
she had in case they intended to charge the husband.
His Lordship then drew the attention of the jury to
the fade, and