The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1889-10-16
LEGAL LIMITATIONS.
The Law Regarding NccessarIes for Wives
Cases In Which Women Jurors Are

S""os !" "n'cn Voh0" VuroEs AEO
Needed.
BY the English common law, still in
force in England and those OF our
American States which adopted the
cannon law, comprising great ma
jority of the States. a.wife has implied
authority. as her husbands agent, to
purchase articles necessary to the cons l
fortof herself and her family. This
means, writes Mary A. Greene. N.
Woman's Journal, that the wife. even
without her shpsbahd;s consent, has a
right to make purchases Of clothing,
food and other articles for herself and
the family, and to have the amount
charged to her husband.
But this right OF the wife is not I'M
limited. II 1t were. an extravagant
woman might with legal IMMUNITY rem
der her husband penniless. and keep
him thus. Moreover. the shop-keeper
who sells goods to married woman
has right to know to whom he is to
look for his pay. Consequently We
find the following limitations to tho
law: A.t[' e 81
!. II the husband has requested his
wife to trade only at certain stores, she
has no right to buy goods and have the
amount charged TO him at any other
stores And if he keeps her. supplied
with a sufficient amount OF ready
money to pay cash for her purchases.
and has requested her not to buy on
credit, he is not bound to pay for any
thing she buys in violation OF his ex-
pressed request. In case Of any dis
pute over this. it is for the jury to de-
eide whether the amount OF money
given to her was sufficient for the fam
lily expenses. and in deciding this the
jury is to consider the pecuniary cir
cumstances OF the husband and the
family's manner Of living. II he has
not, in the opinion Of the jury. provid-
ed sufficient amount he is liable for
necessary articles which the wife has
had charged to his account, and it is no
defense for him to say that he gave her
some money for her expenses, if the
jury think he did not give her enough.
2. II tho wife abandons her husband
without just cause. she has no longer
any right to charge him for her pur-
chasea But so strongly does the law
protect this authority Of the wife to
pledge her husbands credit, that il she
leaves him for just cause, she still has
the right The notices we often see In
the papers, where a husband posts"
his wife, stating that he will pay no
bills of her contracting. have absolutely
no effect to release him from his obliga-
ton, If the wife is without fault In leav-
ing him. They may serve to warn
shop-keepers Of "trouble ahead" and
to put them on their guard, but they dc
not absolve a husband from still pro.
viding for his abused and, it may be.
lonR-suffering wife. So in case of 6
judicial superintendent amounting tt
a divorce-unless some definite agree
ment is made between the parties, the
husband is still bound to pay bills O
his wife's contracting.
8. II the shop-keeper. at the time ,
woman buys goods, knows she is ,
married woman, and yet prefers tt
charge the amount to her. he can no
afterwards turn around and sue tn,
husband for his pay.
4. Not all the bills contracted by tn,
wife are required to be paid by tn
husband. They must be bills for ''nec
essaries" for herself and her family
Now this term "necessaries" has
technical meaning in the law, mucl
broader than its ordinary colloquia
signifcation. In law it does not sim
ply include the bare necessities OF life
Among persons not thoroughly CONVEX
SAINT with law, there is a belief that |
does mean only this and nothing more
and so they not unreasonably eonclud
that this particular law 10 very harsl
to women.
Now, in deciding in given cas-
whether the article purchased be ''nec
essary," many things are to be consid
cred. Diamond earrings might b
considered necessary for the wife of
President of the United States, Will
they would not be necessary for tn
wife Of a day-laborer Theoretically
it is for the Judge to say whether tn
particular article in question could pc.
,, sibly be necessary for any one If h
. thinks that it may be, it is then for tn
jury to say whether the article is ne,
essary for this particular wife, and
deciding this, they must take into col
sideration the pecuniary condition (
the husband, the style in which h
lives. and the station in society of hin
self and his family.
Practically. at the present day, OF
courts take such a liberal view of tn
needs of wives, that Judge will Sc
dom take upon himself the responsible
ity of asserting that the article pu
chased could not by any possibility
necessary for any woman. He wi
leave it to the jury to decide upon Il
= evidence.
Thus, in a rather recent Massachl
sets case, judge declined to rule thu
a piano, a gold watch and chain, a,
other articles of jewelry were n
I necessary for the wife of carpent
q and builder. thus implying that the
articles might be necessary for her
the iury should find that her hushaY