Morning journal and courier., 1880-04-13
Tuesday EernEng, April 13. 1880.
ENGLISH WOMEN AND TRADEsmEN

If recent decision of the English Court of Appeal is correctly reported, that decision will
 dismay British tradesmen and give sense Of
 security to the husbands of wives who are
 given to buying dress goods, etc., more freely
 than is consistent with the state of the family
 purse or agreeable to the husbands. A Mrs.
 Mellor, the wife of man in 8 respectable
 position, ordered some articles of dress of
 Messrs. Dsbenham & Fresbody upon credit. The goods vera sent to her residence There
 was no contention that the dresses were ex
 travagant, or unsuited to Mrs. Mellors station,
 or oyercharged, or in any way objectionable. Nevertheless Mir. Mellor, when the bill was
 sent in, refused to pay it, alleging that he had strictly forbidden his wife to buy anything upon his credit, that she had disobeyed him,
 and therefore he should not pay for the dress
 es. He was sued and the case was carried up
 to the Court of Appeal, which court decided
 that the husband was not liable, three judges
 agreeing that if husband prohibited his wife | from pledging his credit that prohibition
 ended his liability, oven though it was pri- | vateIy given and remained entirely unknown | to the tradesmen concerned. Some little doubt was signifed as to whether this decis- l ion would hold good against use and wont, | that is when the wife was sued by t-adesmen
 whose bills the husband had previously ha-
 bitualy paid, but in the case of s'frst order"
 to trades.nan the judges were absolute.
 It is easy to see what stir this decision will make among all the tradesmen, except perhaps those who deal in necessary eatables, concerning which some little hesitation was expressed. The tradesmen of Great Britain have been accustomed to think that up to certain reasonable amount the order for goods of wife living with her husband bound him for payment, and that he could, by private ar-
 engagement with his wife, put an end to that liability without informing them has probably never occurred to them. Nor will they be
 able to see that the decision is good law or
 good sense It is, as the London Spectator
 says in accord with the ordinary principle
 that an agent cannot go beyond his written in-
 structions, but it is against existing opinion
 and existing custom. s'The wife is treated
 every day in all manner of disputes as the husbands agent, her action in that capacity
 has regulated bargains for centuries and now all tradesmen are told that the presumption does not apply to their case, if the bus band had secretly advertised himself out of the usual law. Lord Justice Bramwel says the tradesmen may charge ready money, there being neither custom nor convenience in favor of credit for ladies' dresses; but sup pose the dresses have to be made up, and that a fair charge till the dress is completed is next to an impossibility. How is bonust made to order to be charged for until it is complete? Of course, tradesman can ask, as the Judge suggests, if the lady has hsr hus bands authority to order her clothes-and she cannot lie about it, for fear of the act about obtaining money on false pretenses- but so he can ask if she has her marriage cer- tifcate to show, and he is about as likely to put the ore question as the other. His ous- toners would regard the question as an af- front Laws, to be just, must recognize na- tional manners as affecting contracts, as well as other customary dealings"
 There is one class of people besides oyerburdened husbands that will be pleased with the decision. It IS the class of married swindlers who by the decision have new field for their labors opened. A swindler in England now has only to give his wife written order not to pledge his credit and obtain an acknowledgement, and she may order what she pleesss. She as wife will no! be liable, and he as husband, op- posed on principle to credit dealings will not ba liable either. If the law is not changed this effect of the decision will be very trouble some. It is probable, however, that there will be a lively agitation for the alteration of the law. It would seem mora ju st to declare by law that the wifes order was in no case l binding on her husband, as then the trades man would not be left ia the dark about pri- 1 vats arrangement which might exist between | a husband and wife.
 Whatever the women of Great Britain have | to submit to in their dealings with tradesmen, the married women of Connecticut who live | with their husbands may congratulate them
 seles on the fact that they can still buy what they really need and have it charged" ft they buy too much the husband can order tradesmen not to sell to them or can publicly advertise that he will not be responsible.