The Women Again.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 369, 26 October 1889, Page 3

The Women Again.

MR ADAIR IN A DILEMMA.

are some cases for large amounts " which cbme before our R.M. Court, but invplve no principle ; on the other hand there are cases for comparatively small amounts, which have some mighty principle attached to them. Of the latter class was the claim heard on Thursday, In which our fellowtownsman, William Adair, sued Agnes Emily Scott, wife of the gentleman generally known as James Robert (who lately shook Gisborne

dost from eff his feet), for the sum of £2 8s 4d for 9§ yards of cashmere, at 4s 6d per yard, and a five shilling feather. The plaintiff conducted his own case, and Mr Kenny represented the fair defendant. When the case was called, Mr Adair took his place in the box and produced three small books which he afterwards explained were only the monthly lists of accounts rendered, and not his daybook or ledger. He then deposed that Mrs Scott had ordered the goods herself, that they bad been charged to her account, and that abe had not paid him. It had been customary

since 1886 for her to get goods and pay for them herself; indeed Mrs Scott did not want her husband to know what her purchases were. In cross examination he said that this particular account had by mistake been included in her husband’s account, but had

been subsequently put in its correct place Mr Adair stood down, and Mr Kenny asked if that closed the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff thought there was something in the wind, he didn't exactly know what, and be hesitated for a moment, but on being assured that he would have a right of reply to “ my learned friend," he took his seat at the lawyer’s table, and prepared to take voluminous notes of the legal points raised by Mr Kenny. The latter said it was a care of importance to the commercial community, and he hardly ktiew whether to be sorry or glad that the plaintiff had a very hard nut to crack even with the advantage of his right of reply. He, however, consoled himself with the fact that the amount was small and that Mr Adair’s loss would not be great. The plaintiff interjeoted something about equity and good conscience, but-his opponent thought that - wouldn't help him much. Mr Kenny then | at considerable length argued that as Mr Adair had not proved that Mrs Scott was

possessed of separate estate at the time the contract was entered into, the plaintiff must be nonsuited, and he quoted in support of his contention, Section 3 subsection 2of “The Married Women’s Property Act, 1884,” and the cases in re Shakespear Deakin v. Lakin, Palliaer v. Gurney, and Scott v. Motley, all decided since 1882. The plaintiff said it was not to be expected that he could follow the arguments of Mr Kenny, but he respectfully pointed ont that this case was not one which involved a contract; the material was required by the fair defendant to cover her lovely form, and therefore must be a “ necessary.” Mr Kenny triumphantly remarked that he had already pointed out that a married woman could not contract even for necessaries. Mr Booth :If she were an infant or unmarried she could cover “ her lovely form " then. This appeared apropos either as an undeniable argument or joke, but Mr Adair bad another little card to play, end proceeded : It is a matter of public notoriety that this person, Mrs Scott, had property; when she left here she drew over £lOO from the Building Society. Mr Kenny (smiling): Bat that is not evidence. His Worship: It is not evidence; you have failed to show she had property. Mr Adair: I am stating it now. His Worship pointed out that the time had gone by for doing that, Mr Adair then saw the position of things, but he submitted that this was a case in which His Worship might exercise his power in a good conscience sense ; during the whole of bis transactions with Mrs Scott from 1886 she had paid her own accounts. His Worship: I am afraid I must nonsuit you and if you can bring evidence that Mrs Scott had property you can bring the caee on again, or you may have some claim against the husband. Mr Adair said he wonld prefer a nonsuit, so that he could bring the case on again, and he then left the Court, evidently under the impression that there was more law than justice in matters of this kind.