Huntsville gazette., 1889-10-19
LEGAL LIMITATIONS.

| American States which adopted the
common law, comprising a great ma
| jority of the States, a wife has implied
| authority, as her husbands agent, to
| purchase articles necessary to the COM
fort of herself and her family. This
means, writes Mary A. Greene. in
Woman's journal, that the wife, even
without her husbands 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 un-
| limited. If it were, an extravagant
woman might with legal impunity 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 the
| law:
l. 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. If he has
not, in the opinion of the jury. provid-
ed a 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 hc gave her
some money for her expenses, if the
jnry think he did not give her enough.
2. II the wife abandons her husband
without just cause, she has no longer
any right to charge him for her pur-
chases But SO strongly does the law
protect this authority of the wife to
pledge her husbands credit, that if she
leaves him for just cause, she still has
the right The notices we often see in
the papers, where husband posts
his wife, stating that he will pay no
bills of her contracting, have absolutely
no effect to release him from his obliga-
Ing him. They may serve to warn
shop-keepers of ''trouble ahead" and
to put them on their guard, but they do
not absolve a husband from still pro-
viding for his abused and. it may be-
leng-suffering wife. So in case of
judicial superintendent amounting to
q divorce-unless some definite agree
ment is made between the parties, the
husband is still bound to pay bills of
his wife's contracting.
g. If the shop-keeper, at the time
woman buys goods, knows she is
married woman, and yet prefers to
charge the amount to her, he can not
afterwards turn around and sue the
husband for his pay.
4. Not all the bills contracted by the
wife are required to be paid by the
husband. They must be bills for '.nec-
essaries'' for herself and her family.
Now this term ''necessaries" has a
technical meaning in the law. much
broader than its ordinary colloquial
Specification. In law it does not SIM
ply include the bare necessities of life
Among persons not thoroughly CONVEX
SAINT with law, there is belief that it
does mean only this and nothing more,
and so they not unreasonably conclude
that this particular law is very harsh
to women.
Now, in deciding in given case
whether the article purchased be ''nec-
essary." many things are to be consid-
cred Diamond earrings might be
considered necessary for the wife of a
President of the United States, while
they would not be necessary for the
wife of day-laborer. Theoretically,
1t is for the judge to say whether the
particular article in question could pos
sibly be necessary for any one. Ii he
thinks that it may be, it is then for the
jury to say whether the article is nee
essary for this particular wife, and in
deciding this, they must take into con-
sideration the pecuniary condition Of
the husband, the style in which he
| lives, and the station in society of him
self and his family.
Practically, at the present day. our
courts take such liberal view of the
| needs of wives, that a Judge will sell
dom take upon himself the responsible
ity of asserting that the article pur-
chased could not by any possibility be
necessary for any woman. He will
leave it to the jury to decide upon the
evidence. aEE
Thus, in a rather recent Massachu-
setts case. Judge declined to rule that
piano, a gold watch and chain, and
other articles of iewelrv were not