The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning. Saturday, October 26, 1889. MARRIED WOMEN AND THEIR CREDITORS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 369, 26 October 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning.

Saturday, October 26, 1889. MARRIED WOMEN AND THEIR CREDITORS.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’fi, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

A SHORT time ago we referred to a case which was heard in the local Magistrate’s Court and in which it was decided that in order to recover from a married woman it is necessary for the' plaintiff to prove that at the time the debt was incurred the woman was possessed of separate property. The importance of the point raised in that case does not seem to have been sufficiently impressed upon our tradesmen, for a case exactly similar was brought before the Court on Thursday last, and as the plaintiff omitted to prove what was requisite, it was of course disposed of with the same result. The latter case was one in which Mr William Adair sued Mrs J. R. Scott for a small sum — not exceeding £3 — for dress material, etc. Mr Adair proved that the goods were bought by Mrs Scott, and that they were usually charged to her private account. Mr Kenny, who appeared for Mrs Scott, on the authority of a case, Palliser v. Gurney, decided in 1885, raised the point that the plaintiff must on the ground before referredjto. In the course of his argument, Mr Kenny gave a brief historical sketch of the law as applicable to married women before the “ Married Women’s Property Act, 1884,” and the effect that that Statute had upon the law. It appears that this Act was an enabling one, but only so far as the married woman might be possessed of property apart from her husband. That although if she were single she might incur any liabilities that opportunity offered, and would thereupon be personally responsible, yet her marriage altogether alters .her status and allows her to enter into no contract except to the extent of her. separate property : and it makes no difference it at the time she is sued she should be rolling in wealth, for the law expressly decrees that she must be possessed of same property of her own at the time the contract is entered into. In fact it has been decided that a woman incurs no personal responsibility whatever, and that any judgment obtained against her only operates against her estate, and she cannot even be imprisoned upon a judgment summons, as Mr Kenny pointed out from the case Scott v. Morley, decided in 1887, and at that time briefly referred to in our columns. Such being the law, it behoves tradesmen to keep it in view in their dealings with the wives of impecunious men. We know that a great many tradesmen prefer to trust wives rather than husbands. There are, however, some men who are in the habit of utilising the marriage tie for purposes utterly inconsistent with honesty. In such cases it will be the duty of those who would give these persons credit to enquire whether they are possessed of separate estate, and not only that, but to have some proof that can be produced in a Court as to her having had that property when the debt was incurred. Once prove that she did have such property and her liability is established against all her separate estate, whether acquired before or after the contract was entered into. It is, however, evidently absurd to believe, as some people do, that the Married Women’s Property Act places a married woman in the same position as if she were single. At the same time her right to incur liabilities as the agent of the husband is in no way diminished, and the law still holds him liable in many cases for her debts. This is poor satisfaction where the husband is bankrupt, as Mrs Scott’s husband is, with no prospect of any appreciable dividend.