A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2658, 13 November 1909, Page 2

A HUSBAND’S LIABILITY.

MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT

Mr. Barton, S.M., yesterday delivered the following judgment in the case of Wheeler v. Jobson, which was heard in the Magistrate’s. Court last week:— The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of £23 9s 6d tor the necessary attendances and services of the plaintiff on the wife of the defendant for a period of seven weeks and three days, from the 17tli day of May, 1909. at' the rate of £3 3s per week. The short facts of the case are as fol-lo-.vs: —The defendant’s wife Gays: “We were married on the 20th June, 1903, and the first child was born oil 3th December. 1903. About three months later I took a situation and kept myself and child for about ten months, and as my husband did not provide a home for me I applied to the Magistrate’s Court for an order against my "busband under the Destitute Person’s Act, for the maintenance of myself and child, and an order was made, by consent, for the payment of the sum of one pound per weefk, 13s for myself and 7s for the child. Two more children were subsequently born, and on the lltli April, 1908, I applied, under the provision of the same Act, for an order for their maintenance, and in the absence of the defendant an order was made by the Court for the payment of the sum of 10s per week for each child, making in ah, for myself and three children, £2 per week. On January last I was very ill and in great pain, and 1 consulted Dr. Wilson, who advised mo to leave Gisborne for a change, and 1 went to Wanganui and saw a doctor there, and he advised me to return to Gisborne and undergo an "operation as soon as possible. I returned to Gisborne and saw Dr. Wilson, and I was admitted to the Gisborne Public Hospital, and subsequently went to plaintiff’s hospital and underwent an operation. My husband and I agreed, before my first child was born, that wo would not live together.” The question which I am called upon to decide in this case is:—Whether the defendant can be called upon to pay the amount of the present claim in addition to the sum ordered by the Court to he paid towards the maintenance of his ?;ile and children under the provisions of the Destitute Person’s Act. I have carefully considered the authorities quoted, and was unable to find any similar case as the present one. AH the cases quoted refer to cases in which deeds of separation have been entered into by the parties, and an allowance agreed upon, but it is entirely different to the present case. It is true that in this case the parties agreed that thru should not live together, but there was no agreement as to maintenance, and in 1905, Mrs. Jobson found it necessary to take proceedings against her •husband under the Destitute Person 1 ': Act for the maintenance of herself and child, and an order was made, by consent, that the defendant contribute the sum of 1.3 s per week towards the support- of his wife, and 7s per week for the child. Two other children were subsequently horn, and proceedings were taken against the defendant, under the same Act. for their maintenance, and the defendant failing to appear m tie day appointed for the hearing an cider nas made in his absence, for th_> i avn ent by him of the sum of 10s per week fo>- each, child, which orders have been duly complied with. After careful consideration of the evidence and the authorities quoted 1 ain of opinion that the fact of orders having been made under the provision of tlie Destitute Persons’ Act, "or the maintenance of a wife and children, does not preclude a wife from pledgmg her husband’s credit for medioa* expenses necesarily incurred by her. In Tripling an order under the Act re'erre ! to the Court considers what is a sufficient sum to supply a wife and children v/H!: the ordinary necessaries ::{ .ife. but nothing more, and that carmt, v: my opinion, free the defoliant Loin the payment of such a claim as fhe one before me. I do not say that in the face of the orders for maintenance, and the fact that the defendant and his wife are living apart, that, the defendant would be liable for the payment of the ordinary household accounts. but I am of opinion L.afc Lo i< liable for the payment of such a c fim as the one now before me, as it is' obvious that the. amount which the defendant is ordered to contribute is inadequate to pay anything beyonJ the ordinary necessaries of life, and it would be unreasonable to suppose 1 hat defendant’s wife could, out of the amount which the defendant contributed towards the maintenance of herself and children pay the amount of the present claim. It -s clear that the expenditure was an absolute necessity, as Mrs. Jobson was in a most critical state of health prior to the surgical operation. In all the circumstances I am of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action.

Judgment accordingly, for the amount claimed, with costs.