A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2652, 6 November 1909, Page 2

A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY.

A BILL FOR NURSING

An interesting dispute as to a Imsbancl’s liability for his wife s expenditure was heard before Mr. W. A. Baiton, S. M., yesterday, when Gertrude Wheeler, professional nurse, sued \\Uliam Jobson, sheep farmer of Mahia, for £23 9s 6d in respect of nursing betvices' rendered to his wife. Mr.h. 1Burnard appeared for the plamtiff and. Mr. W. L. Rees (instructed by Mt. It. Bright) defended the' suit. Mr. Burnard said the circumstances, of the case were rather peculiar. I no defendant was living separately horn his wife, but there was no separation order, nor was there any agreement bv which the husband undertook to pay

his wife any fixed sum. Under the circumstances the husband was bound to provide his wife with necessaries suitable to her position m life. Counsel contended that the present claim was in respect of a necessary expenditure, and cited cases to show that the husband was liable. There had been orders made in the Court under the Destitute tei - £on . 5 > Act by which the defendant was made to contribute towards the support of his family, but this Act only provided for bare maintenance and did not cover expenditure such as the one m dispute. . . The’ defendant s wife stated that slie was married in 1903, a fortnight after her first child was born. Her husband, however: did not provide her with a home. In September, 1905, she obtained

ah order for the support of herself and her child.. In April, 1908, orders were made for*thc maintenance of two other children, the total being £2 per week. She also received an allowance of .--l a week from her mother. Last year she had to undergo an operation for which she was unable to pay. Her husband was a sheep farmer in a good position. He owned 1000 acres of freehold at Mahia. and about 800 acres leasehold. Last April lie had 2600 head of sheep and some cattle. He was in partnership with his brother up to about two years ago, but now was sole owner of the partnership property. To Mr. Rees: The witness had agreed with her husband before marriage not to live together after the wedding, and they had not done: so. When she had her first child an order was made by consent for tile payment of £1 per I week. She did not agree to keep herself. After the birth of her second and third children, she as'ked her husband to make a home for her, but he refused. An application for a further order resulted in her husband being made liable for 10s in respect of the other two children. He did not appear in these cases. This made £2 a week in all, and the allowance had been punctually paid. By Mr. Burnard: On more than one occasion her husband had promised to provide a home for her. Gertrude Wheeler, the plaintiff, stated that Mrs. Jobson came to her nursing home in May and stayed there nearly eight weeks. For the defence, Mr. Rees submitted that it was impossible for the .plaintiff to. recover. The present case did not fail under the authorities cited by Mr. Burnard. The wording of the order for 13s for the woman’s support, and 7s for the child distinctly stated that the money was a sum proper to be paid for maintenance. This order was mado by consent. An application made to increase this order was not granted, but two fresh orders were made in respect of two other children for their maintenance. While these orders were extant it would not be said that Mrs. Jobson was not receiving sufficient support. Though it had been pointed out that under the Destitute Persons’ Act no order of more than £1 could be made, Mrs. Jobson had not necessarily been forced to apply under that Act. Counsel added that he had a list of two or three hundred pounds’ worth of debt incurred by Airs. Jobson. If the wife could thus pledge her husband’s credit he might bo ruined. The order might be increased under the Destitute Persons’ Act to £1 in each case, and until this was done nothing more could be claimed than the present orders provided for. Counsel produced authority to show that creditors in such cases must put themselves in the place of the wife, and if the -wife could not recover money from her husband neither could the creditors.

In reply, Mr. Barnard argued that the husband was responsible for his wife’s expenditure on necessaries, unless the wife had sufficient means to support herself. The cases quoted for the defence only showed that when an agreement is made and one of the termfs of separation is that a certain sum must be paid, the parties must not be bound by such arrangement. Even assuming that the wife in this case had consented to an allowance it was not made at the time of the separation and therefore could not bind her or thd Court. In

sunnort of this counsel instanced the fact that she could even now apply for a-n increase of the orders under the Destitute Persons’ Act. Assuming that the original agreement held,, the fact that tho parties had since co-habited and there were other children would alter the aspect of the case completely. Judgment was reserved.